“Mobile chip giant Qualcomm filed a motion earlier this week in the U.S. District Court of San Jose, California, requesting that a federal judge dismiss the antitrust lawsuit that regulators filed in January,” Evan Niu writes for The Motley Fool. ” The initial suit alleges that Qualcomm unofficially implements a ‘no license, no chips’ policy that leverages its dominant position in cellular baseband modems to extract favorable licensing terms and royalty payments from customers, effectively precluding competitors from the market.”
“It will be up to federal Judge Lucy Koh to decide whether or not to grant the dismissal request,” Niu writes. “We do know that the FTC itself is in the midst of a transition — one that is favorable to Qualcomm’s position. Republican FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen was recently promoted by President Trump to chairwoman of the commission following Edith Ramirez’s resignation, and Ohlhausen was the dissenting opinion in the 2-1 vote.”
“The FTC’s suit never had much teeth in the first place, since it was filed just days before Trump was inaugurated and just days after Ramirez announced her resignation,” Niu writes. “Even if the case is not dismissed, the FTC under Trump really doesn’t care or believe that the suit has merit. On the other hand, Apple’s blockbuster lawsuit has much more far-reaching potential consequences.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: In 2017, Qualcomm’s licensing scam — charging a percentage of the total cost of all components in the phone, even non-Qualcomm components — is ludicrous.
Qualcomm’s ridiculous licensing scheme simply has to go!
SEE ALSO:
Apple’s dispute with Qualcomm could last two years – March 3, 2017
Apple widens global patent war, files lawsuit against Qualcomm in the United Kingdom – March 2, 2017
Apple may have paid Qualcomm $40 per iPhone; accounting for 1/3rd of Qualcomm’s revenue – February 10, 2017
Conservative groups ask President Trump to terminate FCC lawsuit over Qualcomm patent licensing – January 27, 2016
Qualcomm CEO fires back at Apple: Bring it on – January 26, 2017
Apple sues Qualcomm in China seeking 1 billion yuan – January 25, 2017
Qualcomm comments on Apple’s lawsuits in China – January 25, 2017
Apple’s rebellion against the ‘Qualcomm Tax’ – January 24, 2017
Despite lawsuit, Qualcomm wants to keep doing business – January 24, 2017
Why Apple, the FTC, and others are attacking Qualcomm��s royalty model – January 24, 2017
Here are the most damning parts of Apple’s blockbuster lawsuit against Qualcomm – January 23, 2017
Apple’s legal assault on Qualcomm part of iPhone margin grab – January 23, 2017
Qualcomm says Apple’s claims are ‘baseless’ in response to Cupertino’s $1 billion lawsuit – January 21, 2017
Apple sues Qualcomm for $1 billion over onerous licensing practices – January 20, 2017
Qualcomm exec says FTC ‘rushed’ antitrust lawsuit before President-elect Trump’s inauguration – January 19, 2017
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
How can a company have the conjones to charge for things that aren’t theirs? You can bet Qualcomm is in a few people’s cross-hairs and they’ll all maintain long memories. No doubt their comeuppance day is coming.
Judge Lucy Koh? I wonder where have I seen that name before???
Really MDN? Doesn’t Apple sell a lot of Samsung and Qualcomm components for whatever price they wish as parts of their devices?
FRAND, look it up. Applies to IP in SEPatents
Did Qualcomm actually license their technology under FRAND terms? It’s not mandatory, or a “given”. I don’t know, do you?
Still, that doesn’t change my criticism of MDN’s take.
Reminds me of the situation with Token Ring back in the 80’s and 90’s. Being a Mac guy I asked one of the Novell engineers why token ring was not included on computers. Seems the patent was setup the same way. They got a percentage of the whole product it was included in. So it was always offered separately.
“doesn’t Mater” ?