WSJ: Why Apple’s Cook and Qualcomm’s Mollenkopf hate each other

Both CEOs are expected to take the stand in Apple v. Qualcomm. Opening arguments Tuesday.

From Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar Staredown ($) in the Wall Street Journal:

Messrs. Cook and Mollenkopf are so entrenched in their competing positions—and have so little personal connection—that Apple’s top executives have said they don’t think it’s possible to cut a deal with Qualcomm while Mr. Mollenkopf is CEO, a person familiar with their thinking said. “It’s personal. I don’t see anybody who can bridge this gap,” this person said…

[Steve] Mollenkopf, who was born in Baltimore, is a military buff who interned for the Central Intelligence Agency before joining Qualcomm. He has often made decisions after consulting individually with his top lieutenants, but many have left over the years, leaving him isolated and reliant on counsel from outside advisers.

[Tim] Cook, an Alabama native, is an operations whiz who works to build consensus among Apple’s top-dozen leaders, often asking them, “What is the right thing to do?” The group-decision approach has resulted in a team of enforcers who defend Mr. Cook’s view that Qualcomm’s licensing practices—taking a 5% share of most of the sales price of an iPhone—was just plain wrong, allowing the chip maker to profit off Apple innovations in display and camera technology…

A jury could determine who is the real victim: Qualcomm, which claims Apple is violating its patents by withholding royalties, or Apple, which argues Qualcomm has been overcharging for those patents for years. At stake is the future of Qualcomm’s licensing model and billions of dollars in royalties that Apple will pay or keep.

My take: Getting out the popcorn.

BTW, I got this article in my email early Saturday because I pay for a subscription to the Wall Street Journal. When I searched for it on Apple News+, for which I also pay, it wasn’t there. Just sayin’.

10 Comments

    • Peter Kropf said:

      Not there for me.

      ISO bold who will add more excerpts from the WSJ post.

      Even Bolder? How about the whole WSJ story?

      0
      April 13, 2019
  1. Fred Stein said:

    The stakes are much higher for Qualcomm. If they lose, other licensee’s can leverage Apple’s decision. Winning ensures a lot of upside.

    Apple is in a weird situation. About 20% of the price of an iPhone includes iOS software upgrades and support. People gladly pay fhe higher price for this bundle, because ‘it just works”. If Apple unbundled, people would not pay for the upside, and they would not like Apple because their experience would deteriorate. If Apple loses, Qualcomm gets 5% of that 20%. Yuk.

    Long term Apple will be OK. They’re investing in their own modems and transitioning to services.

    0
    April 13, 2019
    • Robert Paul Leitao said:

      Fred:

      In my view, Qualcomm has more to lose than to gain from protracted litigation with Apple. Perhaps Qualcomm believes or knows it has passed the point of no return in terms keeping Apple as a customer. I’m surprised the company has pushed the litigation this far and has chosen not to reach an amicable settlement with Apple.

      0
      April 13, 2019
  2. Robert Paul Leitao said:

    I found the article on Apple News+. It’s posted on the front page of the WSJ under Top Stories. I found it by clicking on the WSJ button on the Apple News navigation bar. Yes. It’s the full story for subscribers. At about 8:30 am Cupertino Time, it indicates the story was posted 11 hours ago.

    0
    April 13, 2019
    • “I found the article on Apple News+. It’s posted on the front page of the WSJ under Top Stories.”

      My version of News+ says it was posted 14 minutes ago.

      0
      April 13, 2019
      • Robert Paul Leitao said:

        Thanks to your reply, I scurried around and opened Apple News+ on multiple devices to see if I would find different posting times. All the times were uniform. I did learn how to better navigate Apple New+ on an iPhone just to find the article. It wasn’t the easiest article to discover (I had to go to the WSJ button and I knew which article to find) but I still can’t explain the difference in the time stamps.

        0
        April 14, 2019

Leave a Reply