3 ms·

Anybody want to summarize the "scathing 233-page opinion" how Qualcomm's patent licensing "violated American antitrust law". This article basically explains ho

Anybody want to summarize the "scathing 233-page opinion" how Qualcomm's patent licensing "violated American antitrust law". This article basically explains how Qualcomm was intelligent about protecting their proprietary position. It does not seem to explain how that protection was illegal.

yonran 4y ago
I think the crux of the article is this: they used the protected monopoly on one market (e.g. CDMA modems) to gain an unfair advantage in the other markets (all the other chips in a cell phone). > Qualcomm's patent licensing fees were calculated based on the value of the entire phone, not just the value of chips that embodied Qualcomm's patented technology. This effectively meant that Qualcomm got a cut of every component of a smartphone—most of which had nothing to do with Qualcomm's cellular patents.
- radicaldreamer 4y ago
  Do competitors or manufacturers using other vendors (Huawei, Samsung, Mediatek, Apple) have to pay Qualcomm licensing fees?
  - noselasd 4y ago
    Absolutely
    - tooltalk 4y ago
      No, that's not how it works. The wireless patent holders collect royalties only at the top of the supply-chain (from oems, not suppliers) to maximize their profit. Mediatek and other competing modem chip makers/supply don't pay, but device-makers like Huawei, Samsung, Apple (ie, Foxconn) do.
  - tooltalk 4y ago
    All 5G devices makers must implement Qualcomm's standard essential patents (aka, SEP). And there are many leading 5G patent holders like Qualcomm, Nokia, Huawei, etc -- they are in turn required to license them a fair, reasonable and non-discrimintory manner (aka, FRAND) to all "willing" licensees. This lawsuit by FTC was largely concocted by Apple's multiyear efforts to pay as little as possible for Qualcomm's wireless invention (royalty) and save their bottomline -- with Apple repeatedly on the losing side not only against Qualcomm, but also every other wireless patent holders like Nokia, Ericsson, etc..
- tooltalk 4y ago
  The "royalty basis" claim was not the crux of the lawsuit (or the article).
stevenjgarner 4y ago
This article definitely does not hit the nail on the head. Patent holders regularly supply patented technology through a patent license agreement. What exactly was discriminatory and not in good faith about the way Qualcomm did it? INHO, a legal ruling this monumental should be way easier to understand for those of us who routinely supply and license proprietary technology. The article does not summarize or explain the actual court's findings: The Court orders the following injunctive relief: (1) Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software. (2) Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms. (3) Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips. (4) Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter. (5) In order to ensure Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies, the Court orders Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for a period of seven (7) years. Specifically, Qualcomm shall report to the FTC on an annual basis Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies ordered by the Court.

yonran 4y ago

I think the crux of the article is this: they used the protected monopoly on one market (e.g. CDMA modems) to gain an unfair advantage in the other markets (all the other chips in a cell phone). > Qualcomm's patent licensing fees were calculated based on the value of the entire phone, not just the value of chips that embodied Qualcomm's patented technology. This effectively meant that Qualcomm got a cut of every component of a smartphone—most of which had nothing to do with Qualcomm's cellular patents.

radicaldreamer 4y ago
Do competitors or manufacturers using other vendors (Huawei, Samsung, Mediatek, Apple) have to pay Qualcomm licensing fees?
- noselasd 4y ago
  Absolutely
  - tooltalk 4y ago
    No, that's not how it works. The wireless patent holders collect royalties only at the top of the supply-chain (from oems, not suppliers) to maximize their profit. Mediatek and other competing modem chip makers/supply don't pay, but device-makers like Huawei, Samsung, Apple (ie, Foxconn) do.
- tooltalk 4y ago
  All 5G devices makers must implement Qualcomm's standard essential patents (aka, SEP). And there are many leading 5G patent holders like Qualcomm, Nokia, Huawei, etc -- they are in turn required to license them a fair, reasonable and non-discrimintory manner (aka, FRAND) to all "willing" licensees. This lawsuit by FTC was largely concocted by Apple's multiyear efforts to pay as little as possible for Qualcomm's wireless invention (royalty) and save their bottomline -- with Apple repeatedly on the losing side not only against Qualcomm, but also every other wireless patent holders like Nokia, Ericsson, etc..
tooltalk 4y ago
The "royalty basis" claim was not the crux of the lawsuit (or the article).

stevenjgarner 4y ago

This article definitely does not hit the nail on the head. Patent holders regularly supply patented technology through a patent license agreement. What exactly was discriminatory and not in good faith about the way Qualcomm did it? INHO, a legal ruling this monumental should be way easier to understand for those of us who routinely supply and license proprietary technology. The article does not summarize or explain the actual court's findings: The Court orders the following injunctive relief: (1) Qualcomm must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer’s patent license status and Qualcomm must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software. (2) Qualcomm must make exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and to submit, as necessary, to arbitral or judicial dispute resolution to determine such terms. (3) Qualcomm may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips. (4) Qualcomm may not interfere with the ability of any customer to communicate with a government agency about a potential law enforcement or regulatory matter. (5) In order to ensure Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies, the Court orders Qualcomm to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for a period of seven (7) years. Specifically, Qualcomm shall report to the FTC on an annual basis Qualcomm’s compliance with the above remedies ordered by the Court.