Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,560
30,891



The FTC today won its antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm over the chipmaker's anticompetitive business practices.

qualcommx55.jpg

As first reported by legal expert Florian Mueller on his blog FOSS Patents, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has ruled that Qualcomm's so-called "no license, no chips" model, under which the chipmaker has refused to provide chips to companies without a patent license, violates federal antitrust laws.

The ruling has significant implications for Apple, as Koh ordered that Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with its customers in good faith without threatening to cut off access to its cellular modem chips or related software and technical support, according to Mueller.

Qualcomm also must make patent licenses available to rival cellular modem suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory or "FRAND" terms, and may not enter exclusive agreements for the supply of modem chips.

Apple sued Qualcomm in early 2017 over these anticompetitive business practices, and unpaid royalty rebates, but the two companies announced an agreement to end all ongoing litigation worldwide last month. The settlement includes a six-year licensing agreement and a multiyear chipset supply agreement.

It's unclear if Apple had any hint that the FTC was likely to win its antitrust case and if that had any implications on its settlement with Qualcomm.

While it appears that Intel will remain the sole supplier of LTE modems in 2019 iPhones, Qualcomm is expected to supply Apple with its industry-leading 5G modems for 2020 iPhones now that the companies have settled, so Koh's ruling could lead to a fairer agreement between Apple and Qualcomm moving forward.

Farther down the road, multiple reports have indicated that Apple is designing its own cellular modems that would allow it to drop Qualcomm for good, although they might not appear in iPhones until as late as 2025.

Qualcomm will likely appeal the ruling, but Mueller believes the chipmaker faces an uphill battle given "such a rich and powerful body of evidence" regarding its anticompetitive business practices. Mueller has excellent, in-depth coverage of Koh's ruling on his blog FOSS Patents that is well worth a read.

BREAKING NEWS: Federal Trade Commission wins #antitrust case against #Qualcomm in Northern District of California https://t.co/bI5v7TpTpo Among other things, standard-essential #patents MUST be licensed at the component level. $QCOM @FTC #ftc #ftcqcom - Florian Mueller (@FOSSpatents) May 22, 2019

Update: Qualcomm has announced that it will immediately seek a stay of the ruling and an expedited appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

"We strongly disagree with the judge's conclusions, her interpretation of the facts and her application of the law," said Don Rosenberg, general counsel of Qualcomm, in a statement shared by the Washington Post's Hamza Shaban.

Update 2: The ruling will not affect last month's settlement between Apple and Qualcomm, according to Bloomberg. "There are no provisions in the deal between Apple and Qualcomm that allowed for a reversal or change in the event the FTC won its case against the chipmaker," the report claims, citing a source.

Koh's complete ruling is embedded ahead.

Click here to read rest of article...

Article Link: FTC Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Qualcomm [Updated]
 

wigby

macrumors 68030
Jun 7, 2007
2,755
2,719
Looks like Apple had the inside scoop on how the FTC was going to rule

Apple wanting the best components for the 2020 iPhone didn’t want to sue Qualcomm into oblivion without having a viable alternative to 5G chips

This was a smart chess move
How was it a smart move? Wouldn't the terms that Apple and Qualcomm settled with disqualify any renegotiating of licensing or royalties for the next 6 years?
 

macduke

macrumors G5
Jun 27, 2007
13,142
19,683
I’ve been arguing the FRAND angle for some time. When your patents are necessary for standards, you have to follow FRAND guidelines.

The license angle was murkier, but always seemed unreasonable to not only sell your product to a user, but to also charge them again just to use it.

Then why did Apple settle so soon...?
So they could get a good deal, and then Qualcomm would be forced to give them an even better deal? Apple is pretty good at stuff like this so I wouldn’t put it past them.
[doublepost=1558528971][/doublepost]
How was it a smart move? Wouldn't the terms that Apple and Qualcomm settled with disqualify any renegotiating of licensing or royalties for the next 6 years?
I think you completely missed this part of the article:

The ruling has significant implications for Apple, as Koh ordered that Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with its customers in good faith without threatening to cut off access to its cellular modem chips or related software and technical support, according to Mueller.
 

redneckitengineer

macrumors 6502
Oct 27, 2017
420
937
I love Qualcomm's response. Has anyone in these litigation's actually every responded, ok we'll pay. We should just always assume that the losing party is going to fight it. I've never heard of anyone agreeing to be the loser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Will do good

Scottsoapbox

macrumors 65816
Oct 10, 2014
1,082
4,080
How many times have I explained on here that this was the correct result under the law? And how many times was I called an apple fanboy by armchair lawyers merely for pointing out the Supreme Court precedent that required this result?

Three times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: notabadname

djphat2000

macrumors 65816
Jun 30, 2012
1,086
1,114
My takeaway from this article is that Apple is only using intel for 2019 iPhone models which means I’m not buying a 2019 iPhone.
I wouldn't necessarily go with that notion. It may very well be the case that Apple has dual models to work with. An intel chipset and a Qualcomm one at every stage of development. Just in case they need to make immediate changes or to have multiple suppliers work for the same iPhone. Even more so for different regions. Never know when a BAN on something will pop up and you have to be able to supply a different component quickly.
 

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
7,895
15,043
In between a rock and a hard place
The ruling has significant implications for Apple, as Koh ordered that Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with its customers in good faith without threatening to cut off access to its cellular modem chips or related software and technical support, according to Mueller.
For this to be relevant, the deal between Apple and Qualcomm would have had to have been negotiated in bad faith with the threat of cutting off access to cellular modem chips or related software and technical support. Where has it been noted that their current agreement was negotiated in that manner? We can't make assumptions this ruling will affect the Apple/QC agreement either positively, negatively, or even at all.
 

ksec

macrumors 68020
Dec 23, 2015
2,227
2,584
How many times have I explained on here that this was the correct result under the law? And how many times was I called an apple fanboy by armchair lawyers merely for pointing out the Supreme Court precedent that required this result?

I understand your point. But it wasn't *correct* per se until it is tested under the law, since it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now, and literally predate many things.

But I am glad we got this results, we don't need all these mess any more. Just give me a bloody iPhone with Qualcomm Modem!

Note: The blog post is an interesting read for anyone who would like more details.
 
Last edited:

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
I’ve been arguing the FRAND angle for some time. When your patents are necessary for standards, you have to follow FRAND guidelines.

The license angle was murkier, but always seemed unreasonable to not only sell your product to a user, but to also charge them again just to use it.


So they could get a good deal, and then Qualcomm would be forced to give them an even better deal? Apple is pretty good at stuff like this so I wouldn’t put it past them.
[doublepost=1558528971][/doublepost]
I think you completely missed this part of the article:

In my mind it is reversed. The license angle has previously been resolved my multiple Supreme Court cases. FRAND is always case by case - given the facts of the situation, is it fair and reasonable? But the license angle is pretty clear given the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhfenton

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
I understand your point. But it wasn't *correct* per se until it is tested under the law, since it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now, and literally predate many things.

But I am glad we got this results, we don't need all these mess any more. Just give me a bloody iPhone with Qualcomm Modem!

“Correct” means that it was the only possible result of applying the facts to the law. The law is pretty clear now. The fact that something has been going on a long time doesn’t inoculate it from Supreme Court decisions. Each time the Supreme Court reiterated that patent exhaustion is a serious thing and gave it more teeth, this result became more and more inevitable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhfenton and ksec

Sasparilla

macrumors 68000
Jul 6, 2012
1,962
3,378
Nice to see. Well, assuming the finding is upheld, it'll mean lower prices for smartphone vendors (not just Apple) going forward and lower profits for Qcom.

One always wonders at what point will vendors like Samsung (that make their own CPU's) would start selling Galaxy S models in the U.S. with their own CPU's (like much of the rest of the world) instead of Qcom's CPU's - that would be a big hit for Qcom. Huawei has that capability as well but puts in Qcom CPU's for alot of markets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solomani

realtuner

Suspended
Mar 8, 2019
1,714
5,053
Canada
How many times have I explained on here that this was the correct result under the law? And how many times was I called an apple fanboy by armchair lawyers merely for pointing out the Supreme Court precedent that required this result?

If I had a nickel....

Of course this was the correct result. I don’t know how people could support Qualcomms position in this. They literally lost every single antitrust case brought against them (5 before the FTC case) regarding their modem licensing practices. And people thought maybe they’d finally win one?
 

az431

Suspended
Sep 13, 2008
2,131
6,122
Portland, OR
Then why did Apple settle so soon...?

Because it owed Qualcomm billions in unpaid licensing fees, and was highly unlikely to prevail.
[doublepost=1558531941][/doublepost]
I love Qualcomm's response. Has anyone in these litigation's actually every responded, ok we'll pay. We should just always assume that the losing party is going to fight it. I've never heard of anyone agreeing to be the loser.

You've never heard of it, but the losing party almost never appeals because appeals are discretionary, are unlikely to result in a reversal, require posting a bond for the entire damages that were awarded, and require payment of costs and attorney fees if it is not reversed.

When your source for news is MR you're unlikely to learn much of anything about how the legal system actually works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasu E.

macfacts

macrumors 601
Oct 7, 2012
4,726
5,558
Cybertron
FRAND, meaning apple should be paying more. Non discriminary means all should be paying same, not cheaper because of exclusive deals.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.