Enjoyed throwing your weight around, didn't you? Apple starts getting taught a hard lesson⎜Just the essentials in 3 minutes
- What to look for
- Starting with the ruling awarding 57 hundred-million dollars in damages over Taptic Engine patents, you can examine 3 methods Apple uses to pressure suppliers: Sherlocking, an offensive of patent invalidation proceedings, and cultivating hitmen.
- Why it matters
- Learning an interpretive framework that connects a 40% margin with unit price reductions and monopolizing profits helps you understand Big Tech's price increases and antitrust issues.
AI summary
The speaker reports that on September (month 9) 26, 2026, a federal court in California found that the vibration technology called the Taptic Engine in iPhones and Apple Watches infringed two patents and ordered Apple to pay 57 hundred-million dollars plus 2 ten-million dollars, approximately 7 trillion won plus 7 hundred-billion won. As an example of the practice known in the industry as Sherlocking, in which technology from smaller partners is absorbed, the speaker cites Apple's approach to Masimo in 2018, followed by staff departures, similar patents, and the launch of a watch with blood oxygen measurement. The speaker says Apple wears down companies that sue it through costs by seeking to invalidate even unrelated patents, citing the Valencell case and statistics showing Apple has filed the most invalidation proceedings since 2012. The speaker says Apple cultivates suppliers ranked 2 and 3 as hitmen to keep the supplier ranked 1 in check, mentioning its support for BOE to counter Samsung Display and its settlement of approximately 7 trillion won after its unsuccessful attempt to develop Intel as a replacement for Qualcomm. Turning to recent developments, the speaker reports efforts to use CXMT chips, iPad and MacBook price increases of up to 30%, and a rebuttal from Micron's CEO, pointing to a structure that pressures suppliers on unit prices. The speaker adds the interpretation that a 40% margin results less from innovation than from supplier competition, unit price reductions, and monopolizing profits, along with a warning that no dominant buyer stays dominant forever. All directional outlooks are the speaker's conditional judgments, not definitive predictions of short-term prices.