Last week Apple Inc. conflicted on the timeline of events resulting in the revelation by Imagination Technologies Group Plc. that Apple thinks to cut out the graphics chip provider. This resulted in a loss of the largest customer of the U.K. company that sent stocks dropping.
Andrew Heath, Chief Executive Officer, Imagination Technologies Group Plc., claimed that Apple told the company nearby March end about it no longer requiring the company’s tech, as per an investor last week. But Apple stated that it told the company about the plans beforehand on February 9, 2017. Imagination eventually notified stockholders of the decision made by Apple on April 3, 2017, which drove its stocks down by 70% and ultimately forced itself to put up for trade.
Apple’s allegations that Imagination kept the news a secret for weeks without informing stockholders creates more trouble for the company. This could urge regulators to inspect whether Imagination inappropriately withheld the news from stockholders, as per one legal analyst. Imagination’s Heath claimed to the investors that Apple informed Imagination at the March end regarding new products of Apple would not contain our IP at early 2019 or some point in 2018. Consequently, Apple will not require to pay us fees on it.”
Apple protested about the mentioned time frame and claimed that it alerted Imagination about the plans regarding not accepting fresh IP from them from 2015 and gave a last warning a month prior to CEO claims of Imagination. “After long discussions, we recommended them on February 9, 2017, that we anticipate to unwind our licensing contract since we require unique IP and differentiating for our goods,” Apple claimed to the media in the statement.
Imagination did not instantly react to a request for comment. Heath has claimed that he does not think Apple can replace technology of the Imagination without employing some of the company’s patents that would need payments. An attorney with the U.K. law company White & Case, Jonathan Parry, who is not caught up in the dispute, claimed that European fiscal regulators were expected to inspect the time frame of discussions by Apple with Imagination.