US Judge Says Qualcomm Violated Antitrust Law (reuters.com) 51
Qualcomm illegally suppressed competition in the market for smartphone chips by threatening to cut off supplies and extracting excessive licensing fees, a U.S. judge ruled, a decision that could force the company to overhaul its business practices. From a report: The decision issued late Tuesday night by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, caused Qualcomm shares to plunge 9.5 percent in early trading on Wednesday. "Qualcomm's licensing practices have strangled competition" in parts of the chip market for years, harming rivals, smartphone makers, and consumers, Koh wrote in a 233-page decision. She ordered the San Diego-based company to renegotiate licensing agreements at reasonable prices, without threatening to cut off supplies, and ordered that it be monitored for seven years to ensure its compliance. Qualcomm said it will immediately ask Koh to put her decision on hold, and also seek a quick appeal to the federal appeals court in California. "We strongly disagree with the judge's conclusions, her interpretation of the facts and her application of the law," general counsel Don Rosenberg said in a statement.
whew (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course they did. (Score:2)
Qualcomm's licensing practices have strangled competition
Well, duh! This is what passes for competition in corporate America these days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's the case that Qualcomm actually contains sufficiently unique patent technology that's a roadblock to national development of a technology, then the government can use eminent domain to buy that technology at "fair market value" and then unpatent it.
Ah yes, the socialist's response to for-profit companies actually making a profit on their investments.
If a company invests R&D resources and creates new technology, it must be protected from copycats. If that does not happen, nobody will invest R&D resources and create new technology since there is no incentive to do so. Well, apart from the Soviet practices of "invent or gulag".
It gets even worse if the government, instead of protecting the IP, forces a company to give their technology away at
Re: (Score:3)
You're saying "eminent domain is socialism" verbatim now.
That's not what I'm saying. The concept of eminent domain does not exist to basically take ownership of inventions and patents. Abusing eminent domain because a company is getting too successful, is a prime example of a government's intrusion on the open market. Which to me, is a step closer to socialism.
Eminent domain by definition violates a private entities ownership. Eminent domain is the second most evil legal doctrine use by the government. Civil forfeiture being the most evil.
You are fully retarded.
The two Master's degre
Re: (Score:2)
If your widget factory gets in the way of the highway, guess what? Your shit is going away.
Ah yes. Indeed. The government sells land to an individual, and then decides to take it back. Not because it's needed, but because of their own convenience. Big difference.
Similarly if your patent whoring/trolling is threatening a public works need defacto that can't "go around" it, then your shit is going away.
Which is the biggest bullshit that I have heard here in /. in a long time. True patents, not the ones that are not really an invention, but a true innovative patent should be protected. Simply taking ownership for "the public good" is nothing more than pure robbery.
You will be compensated. It's not socialism. It's eminent domain, which means exactly what I said and suggested it does.
Ah yes, the favorite argument of eminent domain fanboys. "You'll be compen
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing evil about the idea that the good of the many comes before the needs of the individual, at some well-defined specific point. It's entirely reasonable on its face. How it's used may or may not be.
Well, I actually agree with you on this. It's all a matter of how it's used. Like I said earlier: if Qualcomm would hold a patent on the cure for cancer and is asking 1 million dollars per dose, then yes.
However, in this case Qualcomm holds patents on technology that its competitors do not want to invent themselves. That is not what eminent domain is for. That is not what the government needs to take away under the threat of a gun. The government needs a very good reason to interfere in private contract
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not the type of case that the government can intervene, all they can do is file amicus briefs with the appeals court.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps not. The reason Apple went back to Qualcomm instead of switching to Intel is that Qualcomm has even the most obvious and rudimentary optimization techniques locked up in patents. The USPTO is the cause of Qualcomm's monopoly position in the market. Intel may not compete in the digital radio space according to the US Government.
Maybe, just maybe, if this causes the SCOTUS justices to pay more for their iPhones they'll have some sympathy for a system run amok. Except Thomas, who probably uses an A
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a Justice who is against Brown v Board of Education, against the Civil Rights Act, etc., be against walled gardens?
Thomas always supports walled gardens. His response to complaints about the walls are to say that people should buy their own damn wall and plant their own damn garden.
He's against the Civil Rights Act because he thinks that black people should be able to all move to one State, win the local elections, and have their own segregation if they want. That is his vision of an alternative.
Re: (Score:1)
They even bullied Intel! (Score:3)
Somehow, they even bullied Intel out of the market. Remember this headline?
Intel Will Exit 5G Phone Modem Business, Hours After Apple and Qualcomm Settle Licensing Dispute [slashdot.org]
Re:They even bullied Intel! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, Intel wireless chipsets are rather profligate when it comes to power consumption. That's what gave Qualcomm an advantage in mobile wireless modems, not their patents per se. The wireless chipset is always on in mobile devices, so a small difference in power consumption can result in large difference in battery life. (Same thing in CPUs, where Intel dominates in desktops and laptops. But they've had a tough time cracking the mobile market where low power consumption is of paramount importance.)
Side Girl (Score:2)
At best Intel was Apple's side girl. Sadly, Intel didn't realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Intel wasn't capable of failing out on their own?