Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Qualcomm Facing Off With FTC in Antitrust Trial That Kicks Off Today
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not to be confused with the FAA, the FDC, the FDIC, or the WWE.
Qualcomm is suing over design (e.g. app closing animation) that they never ever use on anything. It's not like Apple stole their chip technology.
[doublepost=1546631114][/doublepost]
I still like Apple v. Samsung better. This spinoff is completely unnecessary and boring.
That’s exactly it. The whole industry creates standards. When the standard is created, anyone in the industry having patents related to that standard must come forward and agree that they make these patents available under fair conditions. If a company doesn’t, then the standard is changed so these standards are not needed. So Qualcomm got their patents included in the phone standards and now they are breaking their promises.
Not one of your better memes.
[doublepost=1546631683][/doublepost]
Think of it this way. A whole bunch of technology companies, institutions, academics, etc. come together and say “we need to come up with a standard for mobile communication so that devices can talk to each other, no matter who makes them. It is better for society if people with Apple phones can call people with Nokia phones, and everyone doesn’t have proprietary systems that don’t work together. Let’s come up with a standard.”
So Qualcomm and others propose a standard. But before voting for the standard, the companies want to make sure that any intellectual property costs won’t be crazy. So everyone has to promise that they will license their IP in a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner. If you are a member of the standards committee, and have to choose between Qualcomm’s way of doing something, and a patent-free way of doing something, you’ll pick the patent-free way, even if it isn’t quite as great, unless Qualcomm agrees to FRAND.
So, in reliance on Qualcomm (and others) agreeing on FRAND, all the members of the committee decide on a standard.
Then, in reliance on the standard and Qualcomm’s promises, everyone goes ahead an builds a network, infrastructure, devices, etc. Suddenly someone who contributed to the standard starts demanding crazy license payments, since everyone is already locked into the standard.
Sound fair?
Microsoft felt the same way once! I would expect this to work out for Qualcomm just as well as it did for Microsoft.
I honestly don't mean to be condescending but explaining the legal systems of the Western World is beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say the odds of QCOM winning are slim. I would expect actions from other governments and companies to follow as well.
QCOM had a Gravy Train with biscuit wheels ... but the wheels are coming off.
Based on your (lofty) standards, you don't want an Uber rating for this.
See how many emoji you made me use!
On the flip side, this is a boring IP suit - we've already discussed this a while ago.
I hope the judge kicks both party's butts!
Last edited:
Do You think we needed 7 years to come to the conclusion that Samsung copied Apple ? Don’t u think Apple should have been paid much earlier ?
You and me will not have Lucy Koh preside over our cases, so I’m not sure what you mean about same level of access .
Yeah... that's the issue.
They have the patents. They're then making these companies pay for the licenses on ALL OF THEM by selling a System-on-a-Chip, even if they only want to use, say, the modem alone because their ARM processor kicks the shhh out of the Snapdragon. This is precisely why they're the sole chip provider in the Android world for anyone not named Samsung... and Samsung can't sell their chips to others anywhere but Korea because of the patents making it uneconomical for anyone to do so.
No, but this is the FTC that currently cannot function because of the gov't shutdown.
We are talking FCC.
Anyone knows when in January 2017 the current "Pai" FCC took over the reins
?
This link ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-in-ftc-case-threatening-smartphone-dominance ) says it is a trial that is expected to last 10 days.
From the following link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-in-ftc-case-threatening-smartphone-dominance
Qualcomm says they don't charge liecensing fees to modem chip makers, only to makers of complete products. So if apple buys chips from Intel and Intel doesn't pay liecensing fees to qualcomm. How is Qualcomm getting paid twice? Looks like they are getting paid nothing.
Is apple/ftc trying to argue that if you buy a lisence for the frand patent, they should get the modem hardware for free from qualcomm?
That’s not the context in which Qualcomm is accused of double dipping. It’s accused of double dipping when it comes to the modems it sells itself.
And it’s now been told that it has a duty to license competitors such as Intel. It had previously refused to do so and argued that it wasn’t required to.
Two things: I don't think Qualcomm is the most reliable source for information on how Qualcomm does or doesn't run an extortion scheme. And Bloomberg has proven itself an unreliable publication since the nonsense "spy chips" story.
Regardless, Qualcomm refusing to license their IP to competitors is part of the issue; they are required to do so by their own FRAND agreements, and their refusal stifles innovation and provides them with an unfair advantage.
Qualcomm can either sell the chips OR charge a fee for the use of their IP in other chips/devices. Apple contends they are charging for the chips AND charging an unreasonable fee for the IP AND boxing out competitors with unreasonable/illegal terms.
It’s not an IP suit. And one of the two parties is the federal government.Based on your (lofty) standards, you don't want an Uber rating for this.
See how many emoji you made me use!
On the flip side, this is a boring IP suit - we've already discussed this a while ago.
I hope the judge kicks both party's butts!
Definitely.
Remember the time Apple tried to to get out of FRAND terms with Ericsson, cos, well, they were Apple, the biggest and baddest in the yard.
But let’s not ruin the narrative hey....
Makes sense. But what would be Qualcomm's motivation here? Pure greed? Or are they reacting to what they feel to be poor practices by those using their technology? What's their version of the story?
[doublepost=1546641571][/doublepost]
Appreciate the thoughtful info and your polite delivery!