backtop


Print 14 comment(s) - last by fteoath64.. on Aug 30 at 10:56 AM


  (Source: cultofmac.com)
Apple and Qualcomm placed separate bids valued at over $1 billion each as an investment with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.

In an attempt to boost their positions in today's smartphone race, both Apple and Qualcomm tried to invest in Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) for their very own factories -- but both failed.
 
Apple and Qualcomm placed separate bids valued at over $1 billion each as an investment with TSMC in hopes of acquiring VIP access to the smartphone chip maker's supply. However, it looks like TSMC isn't taking the bait. 
 
For Apple, the aim is to have an alternative to Samsung as its chip supplier. This will boost production of iPhones and iPads, and it also wouldn't hurt to have another supplier that isn't its direct competition when it comes to smartphone hardware. Apple also recently burned Samsung in court after a U.S. jury decided that Samsung stole iPhone/iPad patents for the use of its own products, resulting in a $1.05 billion fine and upcoming Samsung product bans. So maybe finding alternatives to Samsung for iDevice chip-making wouldn't be a bad idea.
 
For Qualcomm, it's simply looking to boost supply since there have been recent shortages that are affecting its financial reports. 
 
Clearly, either could benefit from having exclusive access to TSMC, where the chip maker would dedicate a facility for the production of chips for only Apple or Qualcomm. Many chip makers today can't produce the large quantities needed to keep up with demand, hence the interest in TSMC. 
 
But TSMC doesn't need Apple or Qualcomm's large, cash investments; it's successful because it has multiple customers (meaning, it doesn't want to give its services to either Apple or Qualcomm alone). It would rather stay flexible instead of putting all of its eggs in one basket.
 
"You have to be careful," said Lora Ho," chief financial officer at TSMC. "Once that product migrates, what are you going to do with the dedicated fab [fabrication plant]? We would like to keep the flexibility."
 

Source: Bloomberg



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ha-ha!
By Motoman on 8/29/2012 1:41:14 PM , Rating: 5
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=201208251...

Apple's "burn" on Samsung is going to come back twice as hard on them once that whole fiasco gets sorted out.

But good for TSMC. Two thumbs up!




RE: Ha-ha!
By kattanna on 8/29/2012 1:57:18 PM , Rating: 1
um.. $2 million out of a $1 billion settlement could almost be a rounding error

but yes, good for TSMC


RE: Ha-ha!
By Motoman on 8/29/2012 2:46:45 PM , Rating: 4
If that's all you got out of that article, you need to read it again.

The jury was awarding $2m in damages for a phone that they agreed didn't even infringe on any of Apple's "patents."

They admitted to not reading the judge's instructions before coming to conclusions.

They admitted to not worrying about prior art.

They...ultimately completely disregarded their duties as part of the judicial system, and will be lucky if they themselves don't wind up in jail for massive dereliction of duty.


RE: Ha-ha!
By rwpritchett on 8/29/2012 3:05:44 PM , Rating: 3
Also, there are some blatant inconsistencies. For example, I would like someone to explain how the Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi was found to be infringing, but the Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE was not. AFAIK, they are identical except for the 4G radio in the non-infringing product.


RE: Ha-ha!
By momorere on 8/29/2012 3:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
I just posted that as one of my links to Tony although we know he won't read them as the truth about the jury is just starting to come out.


RE: Ha-ha!
By Tony Swash on 8/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ha-ha!
By joeRocket on 8/29/2012 2:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's an interesting link. I think this whole Apple vs. Samsung story is very valuable to follow, even merely just to see what it reveals about the state of the American legal system and how much it cares about consistency.


RE: Ha-ha!
By Tony Swash on 8/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Ha-ha!
By momorere on 8/29/2012 3:16:19 PM , Rating: 3
Meanwhile in the not so glorious Apple utopia that you iSheep are so quickly to defend and run back and hide in

http://gigaom.com/2012/08/27/3-reasons-juries-have...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAtje5weAU0&featur...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=201208251...


RE: Ha-ha!
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 3:54:24 PM , Rating: 3
What's shameful is that the jury didn't understand there was obvious prior art for the patent claims Apple presented and that those patents are ridiculous from the outset. Samsung's attorneys or plain jury stupidity are to blame for that.

Just think if IBM/Control Data/etc. had able to patent software menus, icons; or maybe the display of data in rows and columns on a computer screen (never mind paper ledgers have been doing this for years).

Ridiculous patents are ridiculous any way you shape them.


RE: Ha-ha!
By ritualm on 8/29/2012 9:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Don't bother.

In the world of Tony Swash, Apple can impose 1984 over the world and still be seen as a creator and innovator, yet everyone else is seen as a thief no matter what they do.

Right now he says TSMC is foolish to not take on Apple's all-cash offer to build chip fabs dedicated to everything iCrap.


RE: Ha-ha!
By Mint on 8/29/2012 11:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
The way that the jury foreman discounted prior art is insane:
quote:
The software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice versa. That means they are not interchangeable. That changed everything right there.


I'm getting the feeling that Samsung purposely botched the evidence filing because they felt like they'd get a raw deal. How else do you explain them filing late in a trial with tens of billions at stake? Now they can use that "new"
evidence as grounds for an appeal in a different venue with a different judge and - most importantly - a different jury.

Clearly this jury was tainted by a whack foreman.


Wow
By Scootie on 8/29/2012 1:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
Hats me down to TSMC!




RE: Wow
By fteoath64 on 8/30/2012 10:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
It was NO sweet deal!. The contract probably was so constricting, it makes a Boa constrictor looks like a stick!. That money comes with conditions way too risky for TSMC to handle. Those Taiwanese are very shrewd business people and they know contracts and have worked with the main players before, so they are no "spring chicken". They will take a good deal when they see one. This particular one ain't it!. Plain and simple.


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki