Qualcomm violated antitrust law, judge rules | TribLIVE.com

Qualcomm violated antitrust law, judge rules

The Washington Post
A federal judge in California has ruled Qualcomm violated antitrust law by brandishing its market dominance to squeeze excessive licensing fees from phone manufacturers.

Qualcomm violated antitrust law by brandishing its market dominance to squeeze excessive licensing fees from phone manufacturers, a federal judge in California ruled, delivering a major jolt to the critical components market for next-generation smartphones.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s ruling late Tuesday night sided with the Federal Trade Commission, which in 2017 sued the silicon chipmaker on accusations its agreements with phone makers undermined competition.

The judgment comes a month after Qualcomm settled its epic dispute with Apple, ending years of litigation. The deal resolved all 80 lawsuits between them worldwide and included licensing and supply agreements. The legal battle stemmed from the iPhone maker’s allegation that Qualcomm abused its market position for wireless modem chips.

On Wall Street, the settlement had been seen as a sign the FTC’s case against Qualcomm was weak, said Daniel Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, making Tuesday’s ruling all the more surprising. “This is a gut punch for Qualcomm and could have a major ripple impact across the smartphone industry,” he said.

Qualcomm’s legal defeat may also carry foreign policy implications. The Trump administration has moved to limit China’s access to U.S. markets, especially in industries deemed vital to national security, such as telecommunications. Just last week, the White House placed Chinese telecom giant Huawei on a trade “blacklist.” But the Qualcomm decision may weaken the Huawei ban, Ives said, by giving Beijing leverage in the battle over smartphone chips.

“Qualcomm is dealt a blow with this FTC ruling as the main U.S. 5G arms dealer,” he said, while Huawei’s position is strengthened.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in on the dispute, warning that without first holding hearings on the matter, an overly broad remedy from Koh could stymie innovation in the market for next-generation wireless technology.

But Koh wrote that potential resolutions had already been discussed during trial. Qualcomm must now negotiate or renegotiate its terms with customers without threatening to pull its chips or to impose discriminatory provisions, the ruling said, and make its licenses available to chip suppliers at “fair and reasonable” rates. It also must forgo the exclusive supply agreements it brokered with Apple and others, which tend to lock out market rivals.

The court ordered Qualcomm to undergo seven years of FTC monitoring to ensure its compliance. And the company is barred from interfering with customers who might want to report potential misconduct to a government agency.

“Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition” Koh wrote. The company’s leading position in the market for 5G wireless chips, she noted, makes the company’s illegal conduct likely to continue.

Qualcomm said it will seek to put a hold on Koh’s ruling and move for an expedited appeal.

“We strongly disagree with the judge’s conclusions, her interpretation of the facts and her application of the law,” said Don Rosenberg, Qualcomm’s executive vice president and general counsel.

In premarket trading, Qualcomm shares were down more than 12%.

Categories: Business | News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.