“Qualcomm Executive Chairman Paul Jacobs had some choice words on Thursday for the Federal Trade Commission, which filed a lawsuit Tuesday accusing the semiconductor company of engaging in anticompetitive tactics,” JP Mangalindan reports for Yahoo Finance.
“‘We were in the process of discussing it with the FTC,’ Jacobs told Yahoo Finance anchor Alexis Christoforous during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday. ‘They … rushed the complaint out,'” Mangalindan reports. “The FTC said Qualcomm strong-armed Apple into using its modem chips in iPhones by lowering its patent-licensing fees. But if Apple purchased modem chips from another chip supplier, the FTC said Apple would face large penalties by losing out on Qualcomm’s rebate payments.”
Mangalindan reports, “Jacobson contended the FTC ‘rushed’ its lawsuit filing ahead of President-elect Donald Trump’s Inauguration on Friday.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Plausible, but can Jacobs prove his assertion?
We’re more interested in who precipitated this FTC complaint, Apple, Broadcom, Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, etc. or some combination of the aforementioned?
SEE ALSO:
FTC alleges Qualcomm forced Apple into iPhone LTE chip deals – January 18, 2017
FTC charges Qualcomm with monopolizing key smartphone chip; alleges extracted exclusivity from Apple in exchange for reduced patent royalties – January 17, 2017
After eating Intel’s mobile lunch, Apple could next devour Qualcomm’s Baseband Processor business – January 20, 2015
Analyst: Apple’s going to dump Intel modems if they keep lagging Qualcomm – December 5, 2016
Yes, Apple is throttling download speeds for iPhone 7 and 7 Plus Verizon and Sprint versions – November 19, 2016
Apple’s modem choices may leave Verizon iPhone users feeling throttled – November 18, 2016
Tests show iPhone 7 Plus models with Qualcomm modem perform significantly better than those with Intel modem – October 20, 2016
So he would rather talk about the timing of the lawsuit instead of discussing the behaviour of his company which triggered that lawsuit. That in itself says quite a lot. It’s a classic diversion tactic and he’s also trying to add a political dimension to the case.