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, 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.