5 ms·

> "Qualcomm’s royalty rates are unreasonably high" (Section G). That holding will hurt Qualcomm, though it's common sense. They simply charge a lot more than th

> "Qualcomm’s royalty rates are unreasonably high" (Section G). That holding will hurt Qualcomm, though it's common sense. They simply charge a lot more than the rest of the industry--from the perspective of some major OEMs, more than the rest of the industry combined. Gee, I don't know: if their modem is superior, then why shouldn't they get superior share of the market? That's not anticompetitive if they make a better product. BTW if they capture the majority share then it's totally expected that they should get "more than the rest of the industry combined."

gvb 7y ago
Alternate quote from the judge: “Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition” in certain modem chip markets “for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs and end consumers in the process”. Strangling competition and harming rivals is how you (illegally) get and maintain a superior share of the market.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  It's not illegal if they're not found guilty. And even if they're found guilty, if punishment is .0001% (or some other laughable minuscule percentage) of their revenue, its not a punishment - it's a cost of doing business.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    That statement is why tons of people hate Oracle viscerally. Just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should. Everything costs something. The cost here is everyone else just itching to take company X down. Zero goodwill. Yes, they get to do that kind of thing and so does everyone else pushing back increasingly hard.
  - comex 7y ago
    > It's not illegal if they're not found guilty. ...which they just were. That’s the point of the article.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      And please read the second part of my statement. If the punishments are minuscule, it'll just be a cost of doing business. Or better yet, there may be no fines at all. What happened with Yahoo? Equifax? Mariott? Adult Friend Finder? Target? eBay? Each of those has hundreds of millions of people involved in massive breaches. Do they still exist? Were they fined appropriately for the impact they caused? (Admittedly Yahoo isn't the best of examples, because they were in a downslide with no good market. But nor were they fined for a breach of every account.)
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        What does that have to do with your original point that Qualcomm wasn't anticompetitive in its behaviour?
      - comex 7y ago
        I’m not sure why you’re bringing up data breaches, which are totally unrelated to antitrust law. Data breaches are also difficult to sue over in the US, as there’s no law specifically requiring companies to implement security measures or imposing penalties for being breached, although some lawsuits based on common law “reasonable care” claims have gone forward [1]. Anyway, in this case, it looks like the FTC did not seek monetary relief (not sure why), but they sought and received an injunction basically ordering Qualcomm to stop doing what they were doing, with compliance and monitoring procedures to enforce it. That’s not as dramatic as a financial penalty would have been, but the stock hit suggests that Qualcomm nevertheless will suffer as a result. [1] https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2019/03/06/the-rise-of-cyber-negligence-claims-plaintiffs-find-receptive-judges-by-going-back-to-basics/ https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2019/03/06/the-ris...
mbreese 7y ago
> if their modem is superior, then why shouldn't they get superior share of the market Royalty rates aren't about their physical modems/chips. It's about their standards essential patent licensing. In this regard, it would make sense that how much they charge for these patent licenses should be more in-line with the rest of the industry.
ksec 7y ago
I didn't read the full report yet ( ~300 pages... ) I believe it was unreasonably high without the Rebate. >from the perspective of some major OEMs, more than the rest of the industry combined. That was referring to Apple, and Qualcomm has shown Apple has some tactics of making its competitor's patents cost look a lot lower, and hence making Qualcomm's patent a lot higher. My take is that Qualcomm, charges a lot, but unlikely to be "more than the rest of the industry combined".

gvb 7y ago

Alternate quote from the judge: “Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition” in certain modem chip markets “for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs and end consumers in the process”. Strangling competition and harming rivals is how you (illegally) get and maintain a superior share of the market.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
It's not illegal if they're not found guilty. And even if they're found guilty, if punishment is .0001% (or some other laughable minuscule percentage) of their revenue, its not a punishment - it's a cost of doing business.
- ddingus 7y ago
  That statement is why tons of people hate Oracle viscerally. Just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should. Everything costs something. The cost here is everyone else just itching to take company X down. Zero goodwill. Yes, they get to do that kind of thing and so does everyone else pushing back increasingly hard.
- comex 7y ago
  > It's not illegal if they're not found guilty. ...which they just were. That’s the point of the article.
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    And please read the second part of my statement. If the punishments are minuscule, it'll just be a cost of doing business. Or better yet, there may be no fines at all. What happened with Yahoo? Equifax? Mariott? Adult Friend Finder? Target? eBay? Each of those has hundreds of millions of people involved in massive breaches. Do they still exist? Were they fined appropriately for the impact they caused? (Admittedly Yahoo isn't the best of examples, because they were in a downslide with no good market. But nor were they fined for a breach of every account.)
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      What does that have to do with your original point that Qualcomm wasn't anticompetitive in its behaviour?
    - comex 7y ago
      I’m not sure why you’re bringing up data breaches, which are totally unrelated to antitrust law. Data breaches are also difficult to sue over in the US, as there’s no law specifically requiring companies to implement security measures or imposing penalties for being breached, although some lawsuits based on common law “reasonable care” claims have gone forward [1]. Anyway, in this case, it looks like the FTC did not seek monetary relief (not sure why), but they sought and received an injunction basically ordering Qualcomm to stop doing what they were doing, with compliance and monitoring procedures to enforce it. That’s not as dramatic as a financial penalty would have been, but the stock hit suggests that Qualcomm nevertheless will suffer as a result. [1] https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2019/03/06/the-rise-of-cyber-negligence-claims-plaintiffs-find-receptive-judges-by-going-back-to-basics/ https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2019/03/06/the-ris...

mbreese 7y ago

> if their modem is superior, then why shouldn't they get superior share of the market Royalty rates aren't about their physical modems/chips. It's about their standards essential patent licensing. In this regard, it would make sense that how much they charge for these patent licenses should be more in-line with the rest of the industry.

ksec 7y ago

I didn't read the full report yet ( ~300 pages... ) I believe it was unreasonably high without the Rebate. >from the perspective of some major OEMs, more than the rest of the industry combined. That was referring to Apple, and Qualcomm has shown Apple has some tactics of making its competitor's patents cost look a lot lower, and hence making Qualcomm's patent a lot higher. My take is that Qualcomm, charges a lot, but unlikely to be "more than the rest of the industry combined".