In a case brought to court in 2017 by the US Federal Trade Commission, District Court Judge Lucy Koh said Qualcomm should not receive a percentage of sales of each phone a company sells; instead, it should receive a much smaller amount based on what Qualcomm technology exists inside the phone. It also must license its patents to rival chipmakers.
Qualcomm is expected to appeal the decision. If it is upheld, that could upend the way Qualcomm does business. The tech company, based in San Diego, California, receives several dollars for each phone its technology is in, based on the total price of the phone. Judge Koh ruled that violates US antitrust law.
"Qualcomm's licensing practices have strangled competition... for years, and harmed rivals, [equipment manufacturers] and end consumers in the process," she wrote in the findings of fact. She found that its business practices are an "unreasonable restraint of trade" under the nation's antitrust law.
Qualcomm said it intends to file an expedited appeal of the decision. It will also seek a stay to stop it from taking effect.
"We strongly disagree with the judge's conclusions, her interpretation of the facts and her application of the law," said Don Rosenberg, the company's general counsel, in a statement.
The FTC, which brought the case, is an independent federal agency charged with protecting the interest of consumers. The Justice Department filed arguments in the case that seemed to undercut the FTC's position. Even if Qualcomm were found guilty of violating the antitrust law, the Justice Department argued the court should not impose any penalties or conditions without additional hearings and arguments.
But the judge rejected that argument and imposed five different conditions on Qualcomm, the first of which was that it must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of cutting off access to chip supply.
Qualcomm has charged manufacturers using its patents a percentage of the sales price of the entire phone, up to $400. The ruling would limit the fees based on the $15 to $20 cost of the modem chips itself, rather than the entire cost of the phone.
"It is generally required that royalties be based not on the entire product, but instead on the smallest salable...unit," Judge Koh wrote in her findings.
The ruling doesn't cap what Qualcomm can charge for future royalties, but it removes much of the leverage it used to get top dollar from equipment manufacturers, said Florian Mueller, an intellectual property expert who studies patent litigation.
"The conversation has to be what percentage of that chip price is justified," he said. "What the ruling makes clear is that what they have charged is outrageous."
The ruling comes five weeks after Qualcomm reached a settlement in a similar but separate antitrust case brought by Apple (AAPL). That agreement included an unspecified payment from Apple to Qualcomm, and the two companies announced a six-year license contract under which Apple will continue to buy Qualcomm chips. The deal was reached on the eve of that case going to trial.
Qualcomm's stock had soared 35% following the agreement. But Qualcomm's (QCOM) stock tumbled 10% in early trading Wednesday.
Although the case specifically applies to Qualcomm and its business practices, critics question the power of the world's tech giants. Many have called for them to be reined in or even broken up.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that a group of iPhone owners could sue Apple in an antitrust case charging that its App Store is a monopoly. The European Union recently hit Google (GOOG) with a $1.7 billion fine for violating antitrust rules. Critics have accused Facebook (FB) and Amazon (AMZN) of having monopoly power.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/22/tech/qualcomm-antitrust/index.html
2019-05-22 13:24:00Z
52780301533030
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar