Intel Accuses Qualcomm of Trying To Kill Mobile Chip Competition (cnet.com) 50
Intel has jumped into the fray surrounding the Apple-Qualcomm patent spat by accusing the world's biggest maker of mobile phone chips of trying to use the courts to snuff out competition. From a report: The chip giant made the allegation late Thursday in a public statement (PDF) to US International Trade Commission. The commission had requested the statement as part of its investigation into Qualcomm's accusation that Apple's iPhones of infringe six of Qualcomm's mobile patents. Specifically, Intel said, the case is about quashing competition from Intel, which described itself as "Qualcomm's only remaining competitor" in the market for chips for cellular phones. "Qualcomm did not initiate this investigation to stop the alleged infringement of its patent rights; rather, its complaint is a transparent effort to stave off lawful competition from Qualcomm's only remaining rival," Intel said in its statement. "This twisted use of the Commission's process is just the latest in a long line of anticompetitive strategies that Qualcomm has used to quash incipient and potential competitors and avoid competition on the merits."
Hey kettle! You're black! (Score:1)
Next up: Wells Fargo accuses a competitor of corruption and fraud.
If only Qualcomm had integrity like Intel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Errrr... [funnybeing.com]
Netbooks and WinRT... (Score:1)
there is no fact supporting that the competitors of Intel were enter8ng a succuessful product line to market since everything that competrs to Intel hints of compatibilities infringing or mimicking Intel. Every corp is trying to steal busines fom Intel, not actually producing to satisfy customers of it's own.
With that obviously being stated above, who would file,monopoly anti-trust charges? It screams it.
Intel basically killed netbooks by *requiring* them to be crap so they wouldn't compete with their notebook space. Nvidia had a perfectly good chipset with a mid-range embedded GPU that could pair an Atom or low-end Penryn CPU and provide reasonable notebook performance, but Intel used their marketing muscle to kill that business by forcing OEMs to use their own crappy chipset/gpu with low-end CPUs so they wouldn't kill their lucrative notebook business model. Only Apple had enough clout to force intel to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do tell, Intel... (Score:5, Informative)
Do tell, Intel [arstechnica.com], do tell.
All for robust competition in mobile... so long as it is only in mobile baseband.
Hahahahaha (Score:2)
If the premise of the lawsuit is true, it couldn't have happened to a nicer company. The company that tried to crush it's competition in every way you can think of including trying to copyright a three digit number.
Qualcomm is innovating. Intel isn't. I see Qualcomm coming out with 5G technologies. What's Intel doing? Nothing beyond incremental improvements to process technology.
JAJAJA (Score:1)
Intel? the last competition to qualcomm? this guys havent realized yet that they are not even in the list, intel share of Soc market is almost zero.
I think Allwinner has more market share than intel in the soc market.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about cellular modems.
Re: (Score:1)
This is about cellular modems which Intel does make.
Re: (Score:1)
There's this one called the "iPhone" that Apple sells a 10s of millions of each quarter.
Pot vs. Kettle (Score:2)
Yes, Qualcomm is trying to establish a monopoly which is a page from the Intel play book when Intel tried to crush and run their competition out of business, like AMD. [wikipedia.org]
It's terrible when someone uses your own tactic against you. I guess it is time to innovate Intel! You missed the mobile boat and tried to lockup the desktop, too bad no one is using desktops anymore at their primary computing device.
Did AMD go in the corner and cry? No, they innovated and now we have Ryzen!
Such hippo-crasy (Score:1)
This from Intel? with a 30+ yr track record of anti-competitive behavior, including:
- dirty tricks re: Compaq and their fast PC bus (https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/07/10/1445211/benchmarking-utility-shows-amd-ryzen-rapidly-stealing-market-share-from-intel) search for "powerhouse".
- operation Crush
- doing anything and everything to kill non-Intel 64-bit chips with Itanium garbage (calling it Itanic is being technically generous).
- over-the-top sales approaches ('marketing supplements' or some such name)
Re: (Score:2)
On your third point, killing off the RISC chips w/ Itanium was not Intel's 'fault', but that of the various lemmings that blindly followed it. HP I can understand, since it started off as their project to do a one-up on RISC by mainstreaming VLIW, so I don't blame them for putting PA-RISC to pasture.
I do however blame Compaq, which killed off the Alpha in favor of Itanic, even to the extent of migrating VAX to this, which made no sense. HP could not be expected to support the Alpha once they acquired C
Re: (Score:1)
They did make the first microprocessor the 4004, so we should give them some credit.
Re: (Score:2)
Which Qualcomm product... (Score:3)
...is Qualcomm trying to get Apple or anybody to buy? Apple uses its own CPUs in iPhones & iPads, but uses either Intel's or Qualcomm's cellular modem chips. If they use the latter, they have one advantage: they can use it for Verizon, Sprint or other legacy CDMA carriers whose legacy 2G networks in areas lacking 4G or even 3G are CDMA. If they use Intel's cellular modems, then they can sell it to the rest of the world's GSM markets, whose legacy networks are GSM and where Qualcomm patents are not involved. So what exactly is the Qualcomm-Apple spat about? Is Qualcomm trying to get Apple to use Dragonball CPUs instead of the latter's own A line of CPUs?
As for Intel, why don't they simply license Qualcomm's technology, or have an agreement w/ Qualcomm where Intel would be at liberty to make chips using Qualcomm patents, and in return, they fab chips for Qualcomm? Right now, from what I understand, Qualcomm uses TSMC & Samsung, but they could use Intel too as a fab, and get some of the most advanced processes, and the advantages that come w/ it. It's not like the 2 compete head to head, the way Intel & AMD do.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for explaining this. Qualcomm does appear to be overreaching. Why would a contract manufacturer like Foxconn have to pay licenses for something they're making for someone else who holds a license? At a chip level, I would understand - any fabs that Qualcomm uses to manufacture their cellular modems would have to be a licensee to make it in the first place, but Foxconn assembles those PCBs & makes phones. In what way does Foxconn use those patents that are already built into the parts that it'
How quaint a source for this accusation (Score:2)
As if Intel would hesitate to use litigation or the threat of litigation [arstechnica.com] over violation of real or imagined IP rights in effort to attempt to prevent or eliminate competition.
Intel doesn't like competition (Score:2)
Intel is in bed with Microsoft to remove competition from other non Microsoft Operating Systems - that is, Linux etc. from being installed on users computers. This is what the whole "trusted computing" concept is all about, nothing to do with security, but to stop competitors. Intel and Microsoft want a nice cosy cartel like Apple has to stop competition. The problem is, our politicians are corrupt, as are the courts. They refuse to do anything about his cartel.
Just this week Microsoft has said they will st