wish we knew more about the arbitration and the result (any award or just that those standards weren't covered….still maybe tying back to CM)….but in regard to "There is more to the Apple contract then we can talk about"…. maybe it was….less than what we can talk about?
edited - yes, pointing back to CMs and not from Apple directly
For instance, in determining a purported FRAND rate, the Chinese courts applied an incorrect economic analysis by evaluating our lump-sum patent license agreement with Apple in hindsight to posit a running royalty rate. Indeed, the ALJ in USITC Inv. No. 337-TA- 800 rejected that type of improper analysis. Moreover, the Chinese courts had an incomplete record and applied incorrect facts, particularly in view of the recent arbitration decision, discussed below, which found that our license agreement with Apple is limited in scope.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
