Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Apple COO Jeff Williams testified in January 2019 that Qualcomm charged a 5% smartphone royalty—about $12 to $20 per phone, according to EE Times’ account of his testimony. Williams also described an earlier iPhone deal at $7.50 per handset. Those figures were Apple’s account of disputed licensing terms, not a final court determination. The agreement Apple and Qualcomm announced three months later did not reveal the ongoing royalty rate.
What royalty figures did Apple disclose?
Williams described multiple arrangements and rates, which should not be treated as one uniform charge. In its January 14, 2019 report, EE Times said Williams testified that Qualcomm generally charged a 5% handset royalty, equivalent to roughly $12 to $20 per smartphone. He also said Apple’s contract manufacturers faced a rate of $17 to $18 per phone.
For an earlier agreement, Williams said Apple and Qualcomm set the iPhone royalty at $7.50 per handset in 2007. He testified that a 2011 arrangement kept that rate while giving Qualcomm short-term exclusivity for baseband chips. According to his account, the original $7.50 rate did not apply to CDMA phones or iPads.
Williams characterized the CDMA-related licensing cost as roughly $250 million. That is Apple’s description in reported testimony, not an independently verified aggregate or a figure established by the later public settlement announcement.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute#1 Best Overall
Why did Apple say the fees were unfair?
Apple’s argument was that Qualcomm calculated royalties against the value of the whole handset rather than only the modem technology Qualcomm supplied. Williams criticized the approach as collecting value from other components, including NAND memory and stainless steel. These were Apple’s arguments in a contested dispute, not a court’s finding that the fee method was unlawful.
Williams said the $7.50 royalty “may not sound like a lot, but it [amounted to] billions of dollars a year,” as quoted in EE Times’ account. The statement describes Apple’s view of the cumulative cost across device sales; it is not a public accounting of the eventual settlement payment.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
How did royalty payments flow?
A 2017 order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California described Qualcomm’s licensing relationship with Apple’s contract manufacturers. Those manufacturers paid royalties under their licenses, and Apple bore the costs through device manufacturing. Qualcomm separately remitted part of royalties to Apple as rebates. The order records the payment structure at that point in the litigation; it does not decide every disputed licensing claim. See the court order.
Apple’s 2019 Form 10-K says the company sued Qualcomm in January 2017, seeking, among other things, to stop Qualcomm from requiring royalties at the rate it demanded. Apple reported that beginning in the second quarter of 2017 it stopped remitting Qualcomm-related royalty payments to contract manufacturers. Apple said the April 2019 settlement payment resolved, among other matters, disputes over withheld royalty payments.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What did the 2019 settlement disclose?
On April 16, 2019, Apple and Qualcomm announced a worldwide settlement and dismissal of their litigation. Apple’s announcement specified a settlement payment, a six-year global patent license effective April 1, 2019 with a two-year extension option, and a multiyear chipset supply agreement. It did not state the payment amount or the negotiated ongoing royalty rate. The terms are set out in Apple’s announcement.
Qualcomm’s fiscal 2019 filing reported $4.7 billion of third-quarter licensing revenue resulting from the settlement. That amount combined a payment from Apple with the release of certain obligations to pay Apple and its contract manufacturers; it is not the disclosed amount of Apple’s payment alone. Qualcomm’s 2019 Form 10-K does not disclose the ongoing royalty rate. The public documents reviewed establish the license term and extension option but do not establish whether Apple exercised the option or whether a later agreement followed.
Rank #4
How to distinguish the fees from other case figures
Several other numbers associated with the dispute refer to different things, not interchangeable versions of Qualcomm’s portfolio royalty:
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
- $7.50 per handset: the earlier iPhone royalty Williams said was set in 2007 and retained under a 2011 arrangement, as reported by EE Times.
- $17 to $18 per phone and 5%, or about $12 to $20: rates Williams described for contract manufacturers and Qualcomm’s general smartphone royalty, respectively. They are attributed testimony, not a judicially confirmed rate schedule.
- Roughly $250 million: Williams’s characterization of the CDMA-related licensing cost, not a figure stated in the settlement announcement.
- $31 million, or $1.41 per device: Qualcomm’s report of a separate March 2019 jury award for infringement of three patents by specified iPhone models from July 6, 2017 through trial. Qualcomm said the patents concerned booting, data traffic management, and graphics or battery performance, and were outside modem processors and not essential to a cellular standard. This was patent-infringement damages, not the portfolio royalty rate; see Qualcomm’s announcement.
- $4.7 billion: Qualcomm’s settlement-related licensing revenue, including both Apple’s payment and released liabilities—not a publicly stated payment amount.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
