SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Qualcomm Gets $1.2 Billion EU Fine for Apple Chip Payments
Qualcomm Inc. was fined 997 million euros ($1.2 billion) by the European Union for paying Apple Inc. to shun rival chips in its iPhones.
The largest maker of chips that help run smartphones "paid billions of U.S. dollars to a key customer, Apple, so that it would not buy from rivals," EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said in an emailed statement on Wednesday. "This meant that no rival could effectively challenge Qualcomm in this market, no matter how good their products were."
Qualcomm struck a deal with Apple in 2011 that pledged significant payments if Apple only used Qualcomm chipsets for the iPhone and iPad devices. That agreement was renewed in 2013 until 2016. Qualcomm warned it would stop these payments if Apple sold another product with a rival chip. This effectively shut out competitors such as Intel Corp. from the market for LTE baseband chipsets used in the 4G mobile phone standard for five years, the EU said.
European Commission press release. Also at Reuters.
Previously: EU Investigates Qualcomm For Antitrust Activities
U.S. Federal Trade Commission Sues Qualcomm for Anti-Competitive Practices
Apple Could Switch From Qualcomm to Intel and MediaTek for Modems
Related: Apple vs. Qualcomm Escalates, Manufacturers Join in, Lawsuits Filed in California and Germany
Qualcomm Files New Lawsuit Against Apple, Alleging it Shared Confidential Information with Intel
Broadcom Offers $105 Billion for Qualcomm; Moves HQ Back to the USA
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:21PM (14 children)
In the case of contract killing, there is a third party whose resources (e.g., the third party's life) are being appropriated without that third party's consent; it's not applicable; it's not an example of a voluntary agreement; it's not an example of capitalism; it's not an example of anything worthwhile.
Try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:23PM
Don't bother, he was never being intellectually honest to begin with and won't start now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:42PM (12 children)
Ah yes, the simple minded folks chime in again. Do you disagree with anti-monopoly legislation? What about insider trading? As for the example of contract killing, Qualcomm is affecting the lives of many more people with this anti-competitive practice. The are proactively limiting their competitor's market share, and the analogy to a contract killer is extreme yet oddly similar.
I know! We need unfettered corporate freedom so they can achieve market dominance in any way possible! Like the US, if you want to carry Coke products you sure as hell better not carry Pepsi. Only large sellers like Safeway and WalMart can sell both products because they are in the more powerful bargaining position. Are you sure that letting corporations operate like feudal kingdoms is really the best choice?
Guess I shouldn't be surprised that the "try again" troll can't comprehend nuance or understand that limits on absolute freedom are absolutely necessary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:57PM
How much nuance is required for responding to an idiot comparing contract killing to anti-competitive business practices? Want to punish Qualcomm? Get rid of their intellectual property rights regarding 4G networking. That would be effective at creating a more competitive chipset environment while being the exact opposite of additional regulation.
Or you can compare being forced to use Qualcomm chips (because not owning an iPhone is simply unfathomable) to having someone put out a hit on you. And then pretend like you're the one making rational arguments.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @07:59PM (7 children)
The only thing which matters is that society is as free as possible; the only thing which matters is that agreements are voluntary, where "voluntary" is defined by contracts; the enforcement of a contract is just another service in the world, and should therefore be implemented in the market along with every other service—the best Separation of Powers is competition between competing service providers, not a violently imposed, culturally blessed monopoly.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @08:46PM (6 children)
Moron troll chimes in again! So abusing top market share to undercut competitors and drive them out of business (war chest) and forming corrupt deals where CEOs are bribed to collude, THAT is what you imagine is best? As people have repeatedly pointed out, history is replete with examples of your preferred system, and we decided it was quite below ideal. What did we do? We created antitrust laws and broke up monopolies.
Moron moorrrooonnnn, he who is best put to work watching cows graze! Moron moron moron, oh by what other name shall you be more accurately described? Idiot? Say not! Forsooth I see a shit flower blooming in the darkness.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:09PM (5 children)
Which mobile chipset competitor did Qualcomm force out of business? Intel?
Qualcomm owns the mobile industry because they have patents on 4G antenna technology that mobile device manufacturers have to license REGARDLESS of whether they even use Qualcomm chips.
Fine them however much you want, you're pissing in the wind because you haven't addressed the actual problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:29PM (4 children)
Spreadtrum [wikipedia.org], initially listed on NASDAQ, is no longer. Also no longer producing for Western market.
CEVA [wikipedia.org] can't grow over $millions.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:33PM (3 children)
So, two companies that still exist?
I noticed I've posted about Qualcomm's 4G patents nearly half a dozen times in this comment thread and nobody seems to want to address it. I don't like Qualcomm; I think there's a better way to deal with them.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:10PM (2 children)
Patents, in their current form, are not working. That you provide further evidence of this broken-ness doesn't help your other arguments.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @10:23PM (1 child)
The point is that without their 4G patents (which make Apple pay them even if they DON'T use their chips), Qualcomm would lack the negotiating power to have done this. Nobody bitched about slapping Apple with an anti-trust when they went exclusive to AT&T, and within a couple years they were forced to spread to other carriers because competition entered the market (though they too fought it using intellectual property law). Saying "This effectively shut out competitors such as Intel Corp. from the market for LTE baseband chipsets used in the 4G mobile phone standard" is incorrect; what shut them out is that Qualcomm effectively OWNS the 4G mobile phone standard.
All of this boils down to the ability to restrict other people from entering the market by saying you own an idea. You're treating a symptom and being willfully obtuse about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @11:09PM
Partially correct.
More like:
Now, what we define as anti-competitive is the trickier part. Should we allow patents? Should we allow bribery? This is about more than patents or copyrights and you're being willfully obtuse about it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:27PM (1 child)
The only thing which matters is that society is as free as possible; the only thing which matters is that agreements are voluntary, where "voluntary" is defined by contracts; the enforcement of a contract is just another service in the world, and should therefore be implemented in the market along with every other service—the best Separation of Powers is competition between competing service providers, not a violently imposed, culturally blessed monopoly.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 24 2018, @09:50PM
The only spam that matters is what this fool posts! The only way forward is a SEPARATION OF POSTS from their mods! We must listen to this tired fool because with a little blind faith we can fix all of humanity's problems!! We need more competition between good posts and shitty ones! Oh wait, hold on, isn't that what modding is for?
We need more competition in the market place!! WE MUST DO AWAY WITH ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES! Woops again, I guess we need to ALLOW anti-competitive practices or else the commies win. Fucking reds and their EEVVILLLLL ways.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 25 2018, @09:27PM
The only thing which matters is that society is as free as possible; the only thing which matters is that agreements are voluntary, where "voluntary" is defined by contracts; the enforcement of a contract is just another service in the world, and should therefore be implemented in the market along with every other service—the best Separation of Powers is competition between competing service providers, not a violently imposed, culturally blessed monopoly.