FTC Targeting Qualcomm for Forcing Apple to Use its Modems [Updated]

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    The United States Federal Trade Commission today filed a complaint against Qualcomm, accusing the company of violating the FTC Act by using anticompetitive tactics to remain the dominant supplier of baseband processors (aka LTE chips) for smartphones.

    According to the FTC, Qualcomm uses its position and its portfolio of patents to impose "onerous and anticompetitive supply and licensing terms on cell phone manufacturers," negatively impacting its competitors.

    [​IMG]

    The complaint specifically addresses a deal with Apple in which Qualcomm required Apple to exclusively use its modems from 2011 to 2016 in exchange for lower patent royalties.
    Up until 2016, Apple only used Qualcomm modems in its line of iPhones, deviating from the norm with the iPhone 7. Both Intel and Qualcomm modems were adopted for the iPhone 7 and the iPhone 7 Plus, leading to some compatibility and performance discrepancies.

    Qualcomm is also accused of refusing to license its standard-essential patents to competing suppliers and implementing a "no license, no chips" tax policy where it supplies its baseband processors only when manufacturers agree to Qualcomm's preferred licensing terms, causing smartphone makers to pay higher royalties to Qualcomm when a competitor's modem chips are used.

    The FTC has asked the court to order Qualcomm to put a stop to its anticompetitive conduct and take action to "restore competitive conditions."

    Update: According to Qualcomm, the FTC's complaint is based on "flawed legal theory, a lack of economic support and significant misconceptions about the mobile technology industry." Qualcomm says it has never withheld or threatened to withhold chip supply to obtain unfair licensing terms.
    Article Link: FTC Targeting Qualcomm for Forcing Apple to Use its Modems [Updated]
     
  2. DVNIEL macrumors 6502a

    DVNIEL

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #2
    Awwww.... as if Apple probably doesn't bully companies into only using their products.
     
  3. DrumApple macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    #3
    They should stick their nose somewhere else, the Intel modems were shown to be slower than the Qualcomm ones...
     
  4. Derekuda macrumors 6502

    Derekuda

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    #4
    I often wonder if it's possible to sue Apple for forcing people to use iOS on the iPhone. On Android hardware it's possible to load different OS's.
     
  5. Brandhouse macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    #5
    Why? You buy a device you accept certain things, you don't start crying and having a big sook.
     
  6. tubeexperience macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #6
    What does that have to do with Qualcomm anti-competitive practices?
     
  7. diegov12 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    #7
    By using these practices, they were able to spend more on r and
    I didn't know apple licensed its tech.
    When did this happen.
     
  8. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Long Beach, California
    #8
    Hard to believe anyone "forces" Apple to do anything.
     
  9. entropys macrumors 6502

    entropys

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    #9
    Interesting, I would have thought Qualcomm is justified a period of exclusivity for its unique R&D, although it seems they might have gone too far down the track of using their patents as a weapon to kill off competing technology. Only Intel had deep enough pockets to break the roadblock.
     
  10. daveak macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    #10
    Based on performance of the modem in the UK iPhone 7 compared to the 6S I think it is Intel forcing Apple to use Qualcomm.
     
  11. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #11
    This has nothing to do with what's better. The issue is Qualcomm basically unfairly prevented competition by improperly licensing standard essential patents.
     
  12. diegov12 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    #12
    You
    Can we sue companys for not letting us replace the CPUs on them?
     
  13. Mascots macrumors 68000

    Mascots

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #13
    They effectively used Apple's massive production as a proxy to lock out competition.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 17, 2017 ---
    No, it is not possible because Apple controls the entire stack.
     
  14. Defthand macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #14
    It will be interesting to see if the same posters who defend Apple's anticompetitive practices will defend Qualcomm's...
     
  15. Zoboomafoo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    #15
    That's what I don't get, isn't that the point of patents?
     
  16. djcerla macrumors 68000

    djcerla

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Location:
    Italy
  17. Avieshek Suspended

    Avieshek

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2013
    Location:
    India
    #17
    How about targeting 'Intel' as well for their 'x86' architecture? It's killing the Macs.
     
  18. jdillings macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2015
    #18
    No, Tim Cook is.
     
  19. cmwade77 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    #19
    That's actually the point of this, if Qualcomm hadn't forced Apple to use only their modems, then Intel could have competed, meaning they would have had the incentive and money to improve their modems, possibly to be even faster and better than Qualcomms's, which would in turn drive Qualcomm to make a better product and the cycle would go on and on. In other words, competition is always a good thing.
     
  20. oneMadRssn macrumors 601

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #20
    It's a separate issue. Patents give the owner the right to exclude infringing products. Sometimes a patent owner willingly gives up part of that right in making their patent a standard essential patent; usually by joining a group of some kind where the agreement requires them to promise to always license that patent on fair and reasonable terms.

    A totally other body of law (anti-competitive) says that a company cannot flex their monopoly power in a space to muscle-out a competitor.

    Here, Qualcomm can't not license someone. They agreed to license anyone on fair and reasonable terms by agreeing to be part of a standard essential group. Instead, they secretly negotiated with their customers (Apple and others) where they they pay a certain license fee if they use only Qualcomm products, and a much higher license fee if they use Qualcomm and a competing product at the same time.

    Qualcomm can't be allowed to do this. Qualcomm can try to compete on price, on features, etc. But it cannot undermine the relationship between its customers and it's competitors by leveraging patent licenses which it must give.
     
  21. apolloa macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #21
    Well considering the speed fiascos reported with Intels efforts I'm not complaining about this. It's actually a shame you now have pot luck which modem you get in an iPhone.
     
  22. GeneralChang macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    #22
    Well, it is Qualcomm, so... is anyone surprised?
     
  23. daveak macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    #23
    Yep, no way a small company like Intel could possibly compete without being able to sell to Apple. They clearly couldn't afford to. o_O
     
  24. DrumApple macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    #24
    Sounds like a load of BS to me. Come on, Intel not having enough $$ to develop a good chip? That's a good one. Maybe they should have made a superior product to begin with and Apple would have more incentive to use them.
     
  25. BootsWalking macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    #25
    Everyone wants to be a monopoly themselves but wants to be supplied by non-monopoly supply chains. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
     

Share This Page

94 January 17, 2017