Qualcomm Tumbles After Losing U.S. Antitrust Ruling
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Of course the Apple law suit is the first thing that springs to mind. Apple alleged harm very much along the lines of that described in this judgement. They probably settled because Intel wasn't able to supply modems for their next Phone and they couldn't wait any longer to cut a deal with Qualcomm without risking their roadmap. However, this judgement might re-open a window for them to sue again.
What monopoly? There are at least two other 5G chip makers, Samsung and Huawei and according to a fairly reliable Apple analysis Ming Chi Kuo, Apple will use both Samsung and QCOM's 5 chips next year.
I'm very unconvinced that they settled because of 5G or Intel. Apple plotted the world-wide regulatory attacks, the FTC's lawsuit in the Northern District of California, and the pending class-action lawsuit at least two or three years ago. Further, most wireless carriers won't even launch 5G until much later this year, with national wide coverage starting in late 2020 (most likely later). And Apple couldn't wait a couple of weeks? That doesn't make any sense.
It's most likely Apple knew they had very low chance of winning outside Lucy Koh's court in the Norther District of California. It was no coincidence that the FTC went shopping around for forum in Apple's backyard. They didn't however foresee the gov't shutdown early this year that delayed Koh's decision and now Apple was walking into QCOM's den in the Southern District empty handed. So the choice was fairly clear: wait for Koh's decision which might not arrive on time, then settle, or fight QCOM. The latter option carries a lot of risk since, in addition to most likely adverse outcome, Apple's unsavory, embarrassing legal or supply-practices would be exposed (ie, potential lawsuits from investors).
These kinds of big patent litigations are a bidirectional game of chicken. It's possible Apple flinched and settled; they could have anticipated a loss. On the other hand, Apple could well have obtained steep discounts on their 5G modem orders from Qualcomm as part of the settlement to compensate them for their troubles. I think it's hard to speculate on what actually happened without more information.
[1] http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/05/breaking-news-federal-tra...
Gee, I don't know: if their modem is superior, then why shouldn't they get superior share of the market? That's not anticompetitive if they make a better product. BTW if they capture the majority share then it's totally expected that they should get "more than the rest of the industry combined."
Strangling competition and harming rivals is how you (illegally) get and maintain a superior share of the market.
And even if they're found guilty, if punishment is .0001% (or some other laughable minuscule percentage) of their revenue, its not a punishment - it's a cost of doing business.
Just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should.
Everything costs something. The cost here is everyone else just itching to take company X down. Zero goodwill.
Yes, they get to do that kind of thing and so does everyone else pushing back increasingly hard.
...which they just were. That’s the point of the article.
If the punishments are minuscule, it'll just be a cost of doing business. Or better yet, there may be no fines at all.
What happened with Yahoo? Equifax? Mariott? Adult Friend Finder? Target? eBay?
Each of those has hundreds of millions of people involved in massive breaches. Do they still exist? Were they fined appropriately for the impact they caused?
(Admittedly Yahoo isn't the best of examples, because they were in a downslide with no good market. But nor were they fined for a breach of every account.)
Anyway, in this case, it looks like the FTC did not seek monetary relief (not sure why), but they sought and received an injunction basically ordering Qualcomm to stop doing what they were doing, with compliance and monitoring procedures to enforce it. That’s not as dramatic as a financial penalty would have been, but the stock hit suggests that Qualcomm nevertheless will suffer as a result.
[1] https://wp.nyu.edu/compliance_enforcement/2019/03/06/the-ris...
Royalty rates aren't about their physical modems/chips. It's about their standards essential patent licensing. In this regard, it would make sense that how much they charge for these patent licenses should be more in-line with the rest of the industry.
>from the perspective of some major OEMs, more than the rest of the industry combined.
That was referring to Apple, and Qualcomm has shown Apple has some tactics of making its competitor's patents cost look a lot lower, and hence making Qualcomm's patent a lot higher.
My take is that Qualcomm, charges a lot, but unlikely to be "more than the rest of the industry combined".
FOSS Patents is written by Florian Müller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florian_Müller_(author)
As some may recall, Müller was frequently criticized back in the day for failing to disclose conflicts of interest in his reporting. Quote from HN user gpm:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18333187
> I wouldn't trust FOSS patents and the author Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong.
> (Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103
> (Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/
> (Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-...
> (More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257
> Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don't have. He's good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can't tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem.
There is, IMO, some validity to the claim that Qualcomm's SEP portfolio enables a significantly different device. Their analogy refers to the ipod and the iphone, whose BOM in some cases differs by only the modem and yet it allows them to charge their customers an enormous markup. Arguably the value-add of that part and the patents it leverages must be a large portion of that markup, so perhaps it's fair to consider the device's cost with respect to the royalty.
What you're measuring there is the value of the standard and the cellular network as a whole. That includes not only Qualcomm's patents but also everybody else's wireless patents and the entire network infrastructure built by Verizon et al. Which is exactly why standards-essential patents are treated specially.
Moreover, the other obvious problem with it is that there are other devices with exactly the same modem technology in them which vary in price from $50 to $1000 based on processor speed, screen size, operating system, etc. and yet Qualcomm is claiming a percentage of the total device including the value of all the components they had nothing to do with.
In other words, could QCOM effect price discrimination organically without knowing the cost of the full device?
But seriously, Qualcomm is the worst company ever to work with (except maybe Oracle). They are like a gorilla - they won't budge no matter how hard you push. Every little thing costs licensing money - from documents to tooling. We have a Qualcomm SoC for my current project, and support is abysmal.
They put in a minimal effort to provide support and only after you've completed the onerous requirements to submit a support ticket. It involves retrieving tons of dumps and logs and such using their various Q-tools (which are very buggy and half-baked; many of them cost $25k+/year to license). Most of the time they'll just shrug and say "works on our setup" and refuse to help. We'll spend hundreds of man-hours debugging their crap until we find the issue in their kernel driver and then they won't even acknowledge it was a problem and will say "qmi_wwan is an open source driver. We do not support it." Right, so you expect everyone else to maintain and fix the bugs in qmi_wwan even though virtually ALL of your customers use it and you yourselves rely on it as a critical piece of your development platform. Good one, Qualcomm.
But they are really good at testing. They will make darn sure their software works under their extremely narrow and fragile definition of a test platform.
If you deviate from their test platform at all, you can kiss support goodbye.
"Oh, you are using Linux 4.X to talk to our chip? Nope, no support, we specified Linux 3.19 in the test setup, you are on your own."
What sucks is that our platform involves a lot of different vendors - a Marvell SoC, a Qualcomm SoC, etc. All the other vendors will work with you.
But with Qualcomm it's their way or the highway. They know they can get away with that behavior.
Predictably, months after the acquisition, all atheros documentation initiatives were killed, and their new generation of chipset requires a gigantic closed source blob that barely functions, with an absolute minimum of functionality (you cant even change the MAC address!)
"This is a terrible design decision, we should revisit it."
Like ordering a parachute, and the vendor ships you a concrete contraption. And when you call in, they seem incapable of understanding how there could be a problem because it's within their specifications.
Do you ever point out some terrible design decision and they reply “working as designed” and then do nothing?
I think you are talking about Rambus, not Qualcomm.
>They put in a minimal effort to provide support and only after you've completed the onerous requirements to ...
Don't you have to sign a BCPA or something along that line to get full support? Apple had full access to source code -- which then Apple turned it over to Intel, QCOM alleged -- and also demanded that QCOM update their hardware and drivers at least once a year.
Probably. I work for a much smaller company than Apple so no doubt we are doing everything we can to prevent Qualcomm from sucking up the entire project budget. I don't know the exact details but I'd bet we have the lowest tier support plan available.
I thought Oracle was the premier example of that :)
http://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts
> But seriously, Qualcomm is the worst company ever to work with (except maybe Oracle).
OK, we're on the same page ;)
Tech jobs in San Diego pay terrible, but Qualcomm is something else. There's a Chili's a block away from Qualcomm, on Mira Mesa Blvd, and I think you could make more money waiting tables there.
No joke, I've had recruiters hit me up for jobs at Qualcomm that paid about 50% more than minimum wage and required a college degree and five years of experience.
I was only an intern there, but I'm 100% sure you are blabbering.
That's technically correct, but misleading. The stock is still 20% higher than it was on April 15, 2019. (57 then, 69 now).
I guess that's due to the tooling used around building the physical chip?
I don't know how much r&d money was spent on the rpi since the chip is proprietary, and if it's doable to spend money to develop a foss soc.
I liked TI’s stuff but it’s definitely not meant for anything like a modern smart phone.
If you meant the SOC itself... I haven’t even heard of any outside of some fringe kickstarter things.
By the way, Freescale doesn’t exist anymore and the chips that are still avail. are reaching EOL
You need a ball of steel to trade in this stock.