SoylentNews

EU Fines Qualcomm 997 Million Euros for Anti-Competitive Payments to Apple

posted by janrinok on Wednesday January 24 2018, @06:41PM   
from the hit-them-in-the-pocket dept.

takyon writes:

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

---

Original Submission

• Re:I don't see what the problem is. (Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Thursday January 25 2018, @07:58AM

  by zocalo (302) on Thursday January 25 2018, @07:58AM (#627592)

  Bullshit. If there's no penalty for offering a bribe then you might as well offer one every time in the hope that you are dealing with someone corrupt enough to accept it because there's no penalty for not doing so. If both are illegal then every time you offer a bribe you run the risk that the intended recipient doesn't want to take the risk and will report your offer. Both legal scenarios are vulnerable to a third party whistleblower, so there's no change there, but if offering a bribe is more common because there's no risk in doing so then there are far more opportunities for people to get the impression it's the "done thing" and decide to take the risk of accepting it - hardly something that's going to help root out all corruption.

  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Insightful=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3