They do this a lot. Modems used to be split between Infineon (then bought by Intel, then bought by Apple) and Qualcomm, with the Qualcomm ones rumored to have better throughput and signal strength.
Yeah, iircc Apple did this as a negotiating tactic with Qualcomm. Intel had acquired and did nothing with their modem business so they eventually sold it to Apple.
Apple is still using Qualcomm as their supplier but it wouldn't surprise me if they pull an M1 with their modem. For now they're at least using it as a bargaining chip with Qualcomm.
Apple bought two top botique IC design companies, Intrinsity and PA-Semi, and many years of in-house development to get to where they are now today with M1.
Infineon was a laggard and many who bought iPhones with Infineons modems thought they were laggard. I don't anticipate any breakthrough from this. I don't think Qualcomm is that worried either.
I thought it was a kickback for testifying against Qualcomm in FTC vs Qualcomm anti-trust trial which Apple helped orchestrate behind the scene. I mean there was hardly anything to salvage from this declining business.
IMO it all came about because Apple is always trying to reduce it's Bill-Of-Materials. Either by squeezing suppliers and/or vertically integrating. The trouble is they couldn't squeeze Qualcomm by juggling suppliers so they started frivolous lawsuits and Qualcomm counter-sued alleging patent infringement. Apple eventually settled with Qualcomm and paid billions.
Apple alleged that it was being charged 4x other suppliers for access to Qualcomm modems. What came out during all the trials was that Apple wanted privileged access to next generation Qualcomm IP without making purchase commitments. Qualcomm's business model is to charge you for access to the IP and then to give it back as rebates on future purchases of chips. This ensured that you don't take the IP and run without buying chips, which is what Apple was basically trying to do.
Qualcomm counter-sued Apple and alleged they violated an MSA by providing privileged info to Intel who they were using as their second supplier to try and squeeze Qualcomm. The lawsuit alleged they provided Intel with Qualcomm IP to improve their Infineon purchased modems that were not performing well.
Apple however is playing 4D chess. It's known that they've been developing their own Modems for a long time. I suspect their whole lawsuit barrage against Qualcomm was an attempt to either invalidate patents or force Qualcomm to license patents out individually.
Intel had bought Infineon in the hopes of supplying both CPUs and Modems to Apple, but they couldn't make the modems perform and Apple dropped them which decimated their modem business. What Intel didn't know was Apple had been secretly developing the M1 to dump Intel entirely. The Apple purchase of Intel's modem business makes more sense as an IP grab to build out a war chest of Patents against Qualcomm because it happened around the time all their lawsuits with Qualcomm were finishing up and they basically lost.
Often times patents are used as a war chest to dissuade patent litigation from competitors or to get favorable cross licensing agreements. Up until Apple purchased the Intel/Infineon modem business, they likely didn't have those patents to defend against a Qualcomm lawsuit if they launched their own modem. You saw something similar happen when Apple and Microsoft purchased Nortel's patent portfolio 2 decades ago.
I don't recall Apple buying anything two decades ago -- communication patents much less -- Jobs was still busy cutting fat at Apple around that time. Are you talking about the wireless patents bought from the Nortel Bankruptcy in 2012, via Rockstar Consortium to which both Apple and Microsoft were founding members?
Sure, cross-licensing can sometimes be used as a negotiation chip in different situations, but, considering what Samsung and LG, who are among the top LTE patent holders were getting in return for cross-licensing with QUalcomm, I doubt that Infineon's patent portfolio was much of value. Also remember that the wireless SEP royalties are collected at the end of the supply-chain, ie, handset OEMs -- Qualcomm is not a handset OEM and has little or nothing to gain from such negotiation. Infineon's patents had very limited utility (and I'm pretty sure Apple's lawyers knew that too).
And Apple was the largest stakeholer in the Rockstar Consortium and, from the very getgo, Apple never intended to use them as a defense against Qualcomm (or any potential patent lawsuit). The Rockstar was a patent troll operation concocted by Apple to harasse Apple's competitors -- ie, Google and Android OEMs. It's just too bad that, despite Judge Gilstrap's heroic defiance to keep the case in Texas, judge Wilkens in the California court correctly saw through Apple's garbage and brought back the case home where all parties and witnesses, including Apple, would have been required to testify. Of course, the Rockstar dropped the lawsuit like a rock to prevent public disclosure of Apple's shenanigan.
Having observed Apple's lawsuits past 10+ years, I think it's silly to describe Apple's patent strategy as anything other than "predatory;" I certainly wouldn't call it "defensive."
> And Apple was the largest stakeholer in the Rockstar Consortium and, from the very getgo, Apple never intended to use them as a defense against Qualcomm
I was never suggesting Apple planned to us patents from Rockstar/Nortel to go after Qualcomm. I was suggesting that Apple acquired Infineon IP as a means to defend itself if it were sued when it released it's own modem.
> The Rockstar was a patent troll operation concocted by Apple to harasse Apple's competitors
I don't think it was that cut and dry. Apple's two main offensive lawsuits during the Smartphone wars were against HTC and Samsung and didn't involve patents from Rockstar.
Each member of the Rockstar consortium had their own motivations but ultimately it was a defensive move to outbid Google who acquire over 14000 patents from Motorola and IBM that year. Most of the lawsuits Apple was involved in at that time were a result of litigation against them, not litigation they initiated.
