Anti-trust lawsuit against Qualcomm in China will soon be decided

Anti-trust lawsuit against Qualcomm in China will soon be decided
After completing seven rounds of talks with Qualcomm CEO Derek Aberle and his staff earlier this month, China is close to announcing a ruling in its anitrust suit against the U.S. based wireless chipmaker. An online statement from China's antitrust regulators, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), said that the case would be settled based on the law.

The NDRC started investigating Qualcomm 13 months ago. The agency accused the company of price-fixing. A little more than a year ago, China said that it had "substantial evidence" that Qualcomm was engaged in anti-competitive behavior such as overcharging and was abusing its position as the leading chipmaker in the wireless industry.

If  the NDRC rules against Qualcomm, the San Diego based silicon slinger could be socked with fines totaling more than $1 billion. In addition, it might have to change some aspects of its business in China. Currently, the company charges phone manufacturers a licensing fee for the use of chipsets that employ Qualcomm's patents.

Xu Kunlin, director general of NDRC's anti-monopoly bureau, was mentioned in the agency's online statement about an imminent decision regarding its investigation.

source: Reuters

FEATURED VIDEO

18 Comments

1. RajRicardo

Posts: 494; Member since: Feb 28, 2014

And no one bats an eye when chinese brands blatantly copy other phone designs.

4. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2356; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

It doesn't go unnoticed, but it's almost futile to make a Chinese company stop doing what it's doing. The Chinese government rarely enforces international laws and copyrights on it's companies. Only if the company is selling the devices in the US can international organizations step in and stop the sale of the device. When you're a country as big and as rich as China, the rules that apply to the rest of the world rarely apply to yourself. Hence why we haven't really come down on the human rights violations in China but we crackdown on them elsewhere like in North Korea.

6. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

That's one perspective you can adopt. However, the rest of the world is also watching the US on their own issue. A few white cops can stir up s**t for the whole country. No resolution to bring an end to such incidents? This will never happen in China or North Korea. One thing to note is patent and copyright is restricted to individual countries not across the global. Please remember that!

10. Napalm_3nema

Posts: 2236; Member since: Jun 14, 2013

Oh, please. The Uyghur called, and they would kindly like you to STFU. The Tibetans would have, but they have been mostly silenced. You must be Han to point a finger at our race relations with such smugness. The biggest difference is, our racists are killing people here and there, not performing ethnic cleansing.

13. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

I am not saying one is better than the other. If the problem is not solve it will snowball and US will never be the same. Smugness has nothing to do with either. Please take care of your own back yard before you put blame and finger point others. I am not from North Korean or China.

12. jerk009

Posts: 9; Member since: Dec 21, 2014

Cold war

18. Chuck007

Posts: 1410; Member since: Mar 02, 2014

These anti-monopoly lawsuits is nothing but a joke in China. Most of these major operate under the state and manipulate grey areas to operate like a private entity. Most of these companies have CCP liaisons. If the lawsuit was truly against Qualcomm's monopoly then sure I can see where they are at, but as I said before, that can't possibly be further away from the truth. Ever wonder why western partners are always forced to hand over their designs (slapped with threats of lawsuits if they fail to comply) to the state? Only for these designs to be manipulated and used for state owned enterprises (or ones with significant investment) soon after?

15. sbfalex

Posts: 29; Member since: Jan 25, 2013

good artists create, great ones steal... nothing wrong with copying design of other companies... you think it's a coincidence that the back of the iphone look like the back of the M8? the problem is, if these companies can stop concentrating their efforts in stopping others from copying their design through litigation and focus on more creations, maybe they'll always be a step ahead of everyone else, regardless if others copy... it's always easier to stay ahead of the game than to play catchup

2. HugoBarraCyanogenmod

Posts: 1412; Member since: Jul 06, 2014

Overpriced Qualcomm is the reason the fall of Samsung and other android oems.

3. HugoBarraCyanogenmod

Posts: 1412; Member since: Jul 06, 2014

It's time for Samsung to permanently ditched crapdragon for exynos so that they can sell cheap to compete other

5. tiara6918

Posts: 2263; Member since: Apr 26, 2012

or better yet mediatek

14. Ashoaib

Posts: 3282; Member since: Nov 15, 2013

mediatek is a slow soc as compared to competitors

7. LetsBeHonest

Posts: 1548; Member since: Jun 04, 2013

And Qualcomm is too slow which in results makes OEMs to release multiple versions of their flagships and force them to jump in to 6 months cycle.

8. tiara6918

Posts: 2263; Member since: Apr 26, 2012

I hate qualcomm, all manufacturers are forced to use qualcomm because they don't have much choice

9. itsdeepak4u2000

Posts: 3718; Member since: Nov 03, 2012

Exynos is the new chip to follow.

11. Bertelgeus

Posts: 126; Member since: Oct 15, 2014

Samsung has vicious long-term stock "worth" of $5billion, including Exynos. Exynos is crap.

16. Jobayer

Posts: 167; Member since: Feb 22, 2013

but samsung is slow to release the source code and now a days rarely does . .

17. frmrVZguy

Posts: 42; Member since: Mar 10, 2012

Hello Alan, You will have a lot to report on this topic, but maybe not as soon as you believe. I read Chinese language news daily and in their words they say they are ready to settle. That's different. They mean they have their term demands and arguments prepared and approved by Central Committee. It does not mean Q accepts. Thus it is only the begining of the ending. Also, per law360 "‘smallest salable patent-practicing unit" is one way to calculate FRAND royalties. China is objecting to Q's demanding a % of retail sale price of the final device a customer buys. This will result in an interesting method of calculating FRAND with big implications.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.