Slashdot Mirror
US Antitrust Agency Sues Qualcomm Over Patent Licensing (reuters.com)
Qualcomm shares have plunged after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against the company on Tuesday, accusing the company of using "anticompetitive" tactics to maintain its monopoly on a key semiconductor used in mobile phones. Reuters reports: The FTC, which works with the Justice Department to enforce antitrust law, said that San Diego-based Qualcomm used its dominant position as a supplier of certain phone chips to impose "onerous" supply and licensing terms on cellphone manufacturers and to weaken competitors. Qualcomm said in a statement that it would "vigorously contest" the complaint and denied FTC allegations that it threatened to withhold chips in order to collect unreasonable licensing fees. In its complaint, the FTC said the patents that Qualcomm sought to license are standard essential patents, which means that the industry uses them widely and they are supposed to be licensed on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The FTC complaint also accused Qualcomm of refusing to license some standard essential patents to rival chipmakers, and of entering into an exclusive deal with Apple Inc. The FTC asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose to order Qualcomm to end these practices.
Ummmm... No, nevermind.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Prophecy? I guess we'll see.
The US can only do this by Phasing out CDMA. CDMA is basically a weapon for carriers to lock handsets to carriers outside of paying off Phone users.
the FTC said the patents that Qualcomm sought to license are standard essential patents, which means that the industry uses them widely and they are supposed to be licensed on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
I don't get this. Why do industry groups allow patented technologies in standards? Yes, I'm looking at you, IEEE.
The way I look at it, if you patent something, industry should not give you the unfair advantage of codifying your particular patented technology or whatnot. Feel free to make a market for yourself and make it a defacto standard. However, if you want the endorsement of a reputable industry group, you should be required to offer an irrevocable royalty-free license to anyone wants to implement the standard. At least, that is how it would work in my perfect little world.
Wait - we still have an antitrust agency? I haven't heard much from it during the past few decades.
"With only a few exceptions, current (Obama Administration) enforcement looks much like enforcement under the Bush Administration."
https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/has-the-obama-justice-department-reinvigorated-antitrust-enforcement/
The thing is, the Qualcomm product is demonstrably better than the competing options. It's not even close. As a user, I don't give a care if they strongarm Apple or Samsung or other companies and force them to pay more. What I want is the best performing phone I can get and I don't want excuses that some company opted for an alternative that stinks.
We can see that right now with the intel chipset iPhones falling flat on their faces compared to the superior Qualcomm iPhones. There. THAT is why I want Qualcomm in my phones. They know this stuff better than anyone and it works and runs rings around even supposed experts like intel.
Since I cannot just replace the chips and modems in my phone, I need this to all happen as the phones are designed and made and if it costs Apple or Samsung more, so what? Add a dollar to the price of the damn phone so I don't have to be stuck with a junk modem for years and years.
Come on! PAY the premium! I for one would pay Qualcomm directly if I could. I can't. So it's up to the phone makers to do it for me. The FTC can stuff it. If they turn around and force Apple to offer iPhones with a Realtek chipset or some such junk, it's going to damage Apple and I promise I will sledgehammer such a phone rather than use it.
Sig for hire.
So ... you're predicting that Trump will take spectrum licensing from the only agency with any knowledge of what the word 'spectrum' means, the FCC - and give it to the FTC - whose role is to regulate trade, and take trade away from them to give to... somebody ?
You know, I would not be at all surprised if you're right.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Or just a sheep, incapable of seeing beyond its nose.
How's a monopoly situation, kept in place by artificial means (be it patents, be it law buying, be it other dirty collusion tricks) beneficial to any of us (except Qualcomm execs) in the mid-term?
This is the stated intent of his pick to head the FCC. He truly believes the FCC should be disbanded and rolled into the FTC. I personally don't believe he'll be able to accomplish anything but figuratively assign the FCC underneath the FTC and remove a few political appointee positions (unlikely) but that's likely all he'll be able to do in the predicted short term of his presidency.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
is a function of embedded actors in the industry...
Lower quality communication and low signal to noise ratio makes reaching a consensus slower. You can defeat this roadblock by simply looking at the quality of the comments first instead of considering them. When there is clear disdain for the very act of communication, it becomes clear whats going on in the context of the event.
That wasn't what the media reports said. What it said was that he wants to limit the FCC to spectrum control, and move the other functions to the FTC. While I think that's a mistake, it's a very different thing and there can at least be an argument made for it (a stupid argument but an argument).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Qualcomm has patents on actual products, technologies, and methods they have developed. The view of the Federal government is that they are in violation of anti-trust laws.
Yet, Apple who had patents on flat rectangular device, gride arrangement of icons, etc. Gets billions of dollars for having absolutely zero technology infringed. Go figure....
It will be undone in 4 years, if not sooner.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
God dislikes injustice. And has a special place in hell for those who voted to put criminal Hillary Clinton in charge of a country based on the rule of law.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
That wasn't what the media reports said. What it said was that he wants to limit the FCC to spectrum control, and move the other functions to the FTC.
I've been advocating that for years - at least for the "Network Neutrality" issue.
The problems that network neutrality is trying to address are mainly anticompetitive behavior and consumer fraud, where ISPs selectively degrade service either to extort additional fees or limit users who make heavy use of their contracted bandwidth (consumer fraud - giving less than what was advertised or what "internet service" commonly means) or give a competitive advantage to their own "value added" or "content provision" services, those of other divisions of a media conglomerate, or of partners, (anticompetitive "tying", vertical integration, and cartel formation).
As the major federal-level consumer protection agency, charged with enforcing consumer fraud and antitrust law, the FTC is well qualified to handle this sort of thing. It also has a track record of doing so. Their antitrust actions, for instance, include the historic breakups of Standard Oil and AT&T, the opening of IBM's eased mainframe computers to peripheral built by other manufacturers, and the Windows Browser tie-in suit decision against Microsoft.
Among the things you might see from a move of such regulation from FCC to FTC might be media conglomerates forced to divest themselves of ISPs, ISPs forbidden to sell preferential fast-lane service, and bans on cuting off or degrading the service of heavy users.
After the way he was treated by the mainstream media - owned by these same conglomerates - I'd expect Trump's administration to be more than happy to penalize them by breaking up these conglomerates.
- We get more network neutrality - by separating the ISPs from the media conglomerates that incentivize NON-neutrality.
- The Trump administration gets to spank the media conglomerates that were completely in bed with the Democrats during the election - in the name (and actuality!) of consumer protection.
Win-win B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I expect you are likely correct.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
- We get more network neutrality - by separating the ISPs from the media conglomerates that incentivize NON-neutrality.
I still have trouble getting my head around why that was ever considered an acceptable situation. It'd be like car companies owning specific roads, and if you were driving the right car, it'd be free, pedal to the metal driving with all gas supplied, but if you were a competitors car you'd pay tolls and be limited to walking speed.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Apple, is proven as one of the worst bad actors.