Apple Doesn’t Pay Its
Vendors Fairly

If you’re a vendor or an app developer who has been mistreated by Apple, tell us your story.

Share Your Story

Despite Apple having painted itself as one of the most innovative and creative companies in the world, it has a history of undermining inventors and innovators.

Apple’s Practices
The Real Value

Apple is a market bully, using the courts and a parasitic tech ecosystem to undermine and underpay small innovators.

Peel back the onion, and another picture emerges – one of a market giant seeking to devalue others’ innovations at the expense of smaller inventors and broader society. In reality, Apple has pioneered a vast parasitic tech ecosystem, using inventions of various public, private and small companies while seeking to avoid fairly compensating them, and undermining society’s innovators.

Accountability.

Apple must be held accountable for devaluing the very technology that makes its products valuable.

Learn More

Unfair Negotiations.

Typical of its unfair practices, and as detailed in its own devised scheme, Apple forces innovators who developed cellular connectivity, such as LTE, to bring costly lawsuits against them instead of agreeing to a fair license.

Learn More

High-speed cellular technology is the backbone that powers smartphones lightning-fast internet connection. For Apple’s iPhones, high-speed cellular means staying connected with speed and reliability.

Cellular technology is worth trillions in iPhone sales to Apple, yet they adopted a strategy to devalue what is owed to compensate innovators for the development and use of this technology.

Case Studies

View All

Take Action.

Share Story
Contact Us
×

Ericsson v Apple

What

Nearing the end of their 2008 and 2015 agreements, litigation was yet again required with both Ericsson and Apple filing lawsuits. These were both attempts by Apple to lower its royalty fees payable to Ericsson.

When

2015-2016 and 2022-2023.

Status

Both the 2015 and 2022 litigations were settled after a year’s long battle in the courts. The 2022 litigation was settled just as the case was going to the jury. Both settlements led to long-term licenses requiring Apple to pay significant royalties to Ericsson.

Takeaway

Apple forced the litigation option yet again to delay the payments it knew it owed to Ericsson. During the litigation, Ericsson demanded that Apple produce all documents related to Apple's plan to devaluing SEPs or licensing as adjudicated.

European Commission v Apple (Near-Field Communication – ‘NFC’)

What

The European Commission, Europe’s antitrust authority, investigated Apple for its terms and conditions for integrating Apple Pay into apps, and for Apple limiting access to the Near Field Communication (NFC) functionality (used for “tap and go”) on iPhones for payments in stores. Apple’s own Apple Pay is the only mobile payment app that can access the NFC “tap and go” technology on an iPhone.

When

The EC opened its investigation in June 2020.

Status

In May 2022, the EC informed Apple that its exclusionary conduct restricts competition. Apple responded by committing to allow third party mobile wallets in Europe to access the NFC free of charge, and to apply fair, objective criteria to grant such access.

In July 2024, the EC decided to accept the commitments offered by Apple, stating that the commitments address the EC's concerns that Apple may have illegally restricted competition for mobile wallets on iPhones.

Takeaway

Apple was far more conciliatory here than with the EC investigation into its app store policies. However, Apple’s concessions only apply to Europe. Apple will continue its exclusionary conduct throughout the rest of the world.

European Commission v Apple (Music Streaming)

What

The European Commission, Europe’s antitrust authority, investigated Apple and found that Apple bans music streaming app developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app, which is illegal under EU antitrust rules.

When

The EC opened its investigation in June 2020.

Status

In March 2024, the EC fined Apple over 1.8 billion Euros for its abusive app store rules for music streaming providers.

Takeaway

The European Commission is not afraid to take action against Apple’s predatory app store policies. Also, it will now be easier for victims of Apple’s antitrust behavior (like Spotify) to obtain damages for the harm Apple has caused them.

Masimo v Apple

What

Masimo is a maker of medical devices that invented a way to measure oxygen in the bloodstream on a wearable device. Masimo has spent over $100 million on several lawsuits against Apple since 2020 for using its patented pulse oximeter technology on Apple watches, for hiring away its chief technology officer and other employees, and for stealing trade secrets.

When

2020 to present.

Status

Masimo ultimately won an exclusion order from the US International Trade Commission, affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, blocking Apple from importing Apple watches that have pulse oximeter technology. Apple watches for sale today do not have this feature.

In 2022, Apple responded by filing its own patent infringement lawsuit against Masimo’s Freedom watch.

Takeaway

Litigation against Apple is dragged out and Apple will bring its own countersuits against companies that challenge its right to use their technology.

Qualcomm v Apple

What

Qualcomm was forced to sue Apple after their previous license expired. This led to a global litigation campaign with both Qualcomm and Apple launching multiple lawsuits in various jurisdictions and US/EU regulatory fights.

When

2017 to 2019.

Status

In April 2019, Apple and Qualcomm settled all litigation and signed a 6-year global license.

Takeaway

Apple’s attempt to pressure Qualcomm through court battles largely backfired as Apple’s Devalue SEPs scheme was uncovered. The needle in the haystack for Apple’s behavior was found.

U.S. Department of Justice v Apple (Antitrust)

What

The Department of Justice sued Apple for acts that violate the antitrust laws, alleging that Apple acted to restrict competition in messaging apps, cloud streaming game apps, super apps (apps that provide broad functionality within a single app), smart watches and digital wallets.

When

March 2024.

Status

In August 2024, Apple filed a motion to dismiss the case, and in September, the DOJ filed its opposition to Apple’s motion. Apple argues that it’s decisions about the terms on which it chooses to deal with third parties are not “exclusionary”, that its restrictions do not impact consumer choice on which smartphone to purchase, and that it is not a monopolist because Apple faces competition from other big smartphone companies.

Takeaway

The DOJ’s complaint has laid out Apple’s predatory practices that protect and further its monopoly. Apple has hired multiple law firms to fight the D.O.J, with a large team of lawyers from each firm, and is going to use its deep wealth to fight this case to the bitter end like it does with every litigation.