Intel Attacks Qualcomm for Allegedly Stifling Competition (tomshardware.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Attacks Qualcomm for Allegedly Stifling Competition (tomshardware.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:23AM from the how-about-that dept.

In an official statement Thursday, Intel called out Qualcomm for allegedly continuing to pursue its use of patent lawsuits and threatening lawsuits against its own customers and competitors even as multiple antitrust agencies have found Qualcomm to be violating competition laws with these tactics. From a report: The statement from Steven Rodgers, Intel EVP and general counsel, said that despite Qualcomm being fined by multiple governments around the world over its abuse of patents against other companies, the company continues the same aggressive legal strategy against its partners and competitors. This, Intel said, will only lead to higher prices for consumers and less innovation.

According to Intel, Qualcomm's goal is not to vindicate its IP rights, but to drive competition out of the market completely. Intel pointed out that Qualcomm has been fined almost a billion dollars in China, $850 million in Korea, $1.2 billion in the European Union and $773 million in Taiwan over the company's anti-competitive practices. Intel also encouraged everyone to pay attention to FTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm in the United States. The FTC will begin its opening arguments in court on January 4. Intel, who is a competitor of Qualcomm in the wireless modem space, said that it hopes the actions taken by global authorities against Qualcomm will preserve competition in the 5G market.

15 of 40 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That's funny... by Mashiki · 2018-12-20 05:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Very funny. Coming from the same company that has been hit repeatedly for anti-competitive behavior, price fixing, and anti-trust actions against a competitor(AMD) and lost every case.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
1. Re: That's funny... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-20 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Let's not pretend either company has any moral high ground. All corporations are out to make as much money as possible, including options that have penalties or are illegal but result in higher net gains.
  That's capitalism folks, don't pretend you care about consumers. You only care about consumers when it increases your investors profit margins or your yearly bonus. All the PR work is simply strategy to gain a stronger market foothold. Switch the company's positions and it'll be nearly identical.
2. Re:That's funny... by jimbo · 2018-12-20 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  But they're right, QC are complete assholes, like many large dominant companies, like Intel themselves have been for decades.
Checks out by SuperKendall · 2018-12-20 05:48 · Score: 1

Very funny. Coming from the same company that has been hit repeatedly for anti-competitive behavior,
On the other hand, it does fit perfectly with the "takes one to know one" theory...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Checks out by Mashiki · 2018-12-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, it does fit perfectly with the "takes one to know one" theory...
  Or the old 'every center of power creates it's own monster that fuels it's demise' to paraphrase.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:Checks out by postbigbang · 2018-12-20 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  And no narcissistic corporation has a heart or soul. Wintel is now LoseTel because they couldn't tell that their oil well in the basement would start to run dry with ARM, SoCs, and good RF designs. Now their competitor is QC, but also Softbank.
  Intel: There are no tears for you, and your PR line is BS and sounds plainly stupid coming from the ex-king of CPU monopolies.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Re:Remove all patents by xack · 2018-12-20 05:55 · Score: 1

In a world where significant advances in Moore's law happens every 18 months, 20 years is far too long. Tech related patents need to be a lot shorter length. Imagine if Disney ran the patent office.
Re: by kurkosdr · 2018-12-20 06:40 · Score: 1

Sayeth the holder of essential patents for the defacto standard called "x86", a standard which is important for the little niche called "Almost all Desktop and laptops"
Re:Remove all patents by The+Grim+Reefer · 2018-12-20 06:41 · Score: 1

Imagine if Disney ran the patent office.
All progress would have halted shortly after the wheel?
Re:spiderman_pointing_spiderman_dot_jpg by Hylandr · 2018-12-20 08:01 · Score: 1

They are just pissed because they lost the patent lawsuit to Qualcomm

--
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Re:Pot Kettle Black by bobstreo · 2018-12-20 08:42 · Score: 1

Well Intel literally paid OEM's to not offer AMD chips, and they still increase the amount of "reimbursements" they give to companies based on how many non-Intel chips they sell.
What are you complaining about, silly?
Volume discounts and rebates are standard business practices:

Intel's rebate payments to Dell maxed out that fiscal quarter, February to April 2006, at $805 million...
That figure represented 104% of Dell's net income for the quarter.
LOL, TIL Dell is still "in business" I thought it went belly up years ago.
Re:Pot Kettle Black by sjames · 2018-12-20 11:23 · Score: 1

Not to mention rigging their compiler to add code to detect competing compatible CPUs and downgrade to the slowest code path. Proven by patching the detection code out and running the code flawlessly at much better performance on AMD processors.
Re:Pot Kettle Black by sjames · 2018-12-20 11:25 · Score: 1

Volume discounts and rebates are standard. Withholding them if someone also sells the competitor's product crosses the line.
Re:spiderman_pointing_spiderman_dot_jpg by arglebargle_xiv · 2018-12-20 13:17 · Score: 1

Yup, this is the company whose motto is "only the paranoid survive", they practically wrote the book on crushing competitors via unethical means.
Re:spiderman_pointing_spiderman_dot_jpg by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-20 15:37 · Score: 1

Intel has historically been open to sharing technology. That's why AMD exists. That's why there have been many other manufacturers of x86 compatible CPUs (IBM, NEC, Texas Instruments, Cyrix, NexGen, VIA, IDT, Rise, Transmeta, STM, Fujitsu, OKI, Siemens, Intersil, C&T, UMC, etc.). If they were as anti-competitive as you falsely claim, then that would have never happened.