FTC asks court to dismiss Qualcomm's request to stop ongoing anti-competitive case


Once again, Qualcomm has been taken to court, accused of being anti-competitive and monopolistic. This time, it's Apple, Samsung, and the US Federal Trade Comission against the chipmaker. The three aren't exactly cool with how Qualcomm allegedly uses its humongous portfolio of standard essential patents – governing technology required to be doing business in a specific industry – to play the market for its benefit. Thus, the FTC argued that the court should not accept Qualcomm's request of dismissing the suit put against the company in January.

Moreover, Apple claims Qualcomm essentially forced an exclusive supply deal onto them and completely blocked out possible competitors. It's also unhappy with certain licensing issues and stopped paying royalties, to which Qualcomm responded by seeking to ban iPhones from being imported and sold in America.

Samsung doesn't like that Qualcomm won't license its standard essential patents to fellow chipmakers, including Sammy. This has kept Samsung and others' products from fairly competing with Qualcomm's Snapdragon chipsets and LTE modems. Indeed, a contract clause with Qualcomm is the precise reason why Sam stopped selling its excellent Exynos chips to third parties.

At the same time, all three companies are entangled in business relationships as their lawyers are duking it out in courts. Legal stuff matters, of course, but as they say on the barren planet of Arrakis, the spice must flow...

ALSO READ


source: CNET

FEATURED VIDEO

15 Comments

1. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

"Moreover, Apple claims Qualcomm essentially forced an exclusive supply deal onto them and completely blocked out possible competitors" Just like they did by removing the 3.5mm headphone jack... "Samsung doesn't like that Qualcomm won't license its standard essential patents to fellow chipmakers" Sounds like Qualcomm is looking to pull a crappIe here and stagnate the growth of SOC development. Can't freely use their tech, can't license it either (at any price they call), that's just outright anti-competitive...

2. piyath

Posts: 2445; Member since: Mar 23, 2012

You used 2 examples from the article to bash Apple and praise Samsung in a very stupid childish way.. ..lol

3. sgtdisturbed47

Posts: 966; Member since: Feb 02, 2012

Shameless fanboyism

10. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

What's fanboyish about the fact that crappIe is complaining about the same sh!t they're 100% guilty of like the typical hypocrites they are ( http://sck.pm/4vS ), and the fact that they refuse to license patents to competitors ( http://sck.pm/xS )? Do share...

4. GoTstan

Posts: 386; Member since: Jul 25, 2015

Can we agree that Apple does suck tho

9. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

Butthurt sheeple sure see what they want to see, cry me a river you ignoramus numbskull...

5. trojan_horse

Posts: 5868; Member since: May 06, 2016

"Indeed, a contract clause with Qualcomm is the precise reason why Sam stopped selling its excellent Exynos chips to third parties." I always knew that a clause was behind the reason why Samsung did not sell it's Exynos SoCs to other OEMs.

6. LikeMyself

Posts: 631; Member since: Sep 23, 2013

The clause is justified considering it's pretty obvious that Samsung steals some of the technologies & specs that Qualcomm use in their respective chips since it's manufacturing them. I've always wondered how the Exynos chip matched every new generation Snapdragon. Qualcomm & Google face these issues because they're the best. The rest need to catch up instead of complaining to their Daddy the Court.

7. FlySheikh

Posts: 444; Member since: Oct 02, 2015

Am I still banned?

8. tedkord

Posts: 17356; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Yes, you are.

11. Cat97

Posts: 1892; Member since: Mar 02, 2017

[please delete]

12. Jackdaw

Posts: 66; Member since: Mar 10, 2016

"Sounds like Qualcomm is looking to pull a crappIe here and stagnate the growth of SOC development. Can't freely use their tech, can't license it either (at any price they call), that's just outright anti-competitive" If you are a phone manufacturer, and wants to us my soc, you buy it and use it. But the tech is still mine. If you don't like it get a s**tty mtk. How is this anti competitive? Samsung was exclusive with s835, that was more anti competitive. Look the g6

13. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

"If you are a phone manufacturer, and wants to us my soc, you buy it and use it. But the tech is still mine. If you don't like it get a s**tty mtk. How is this anti competitive?" Samsung isn't looking to use their SOC, they're looking to use the technology behind it to make something else, which Qualcomm, like crappIe, is refusing to license according to the article. If you dare make anything similar, guess what, they'd sue you for "infringing". That's what's anticompetitive here. As for Samsung being "exclusive" with SD835, that's like saying a customer is anticompetitive 'cause they bought all the tools in a store. It's called first come first serve. There are other devices with SD835 too, nothing exclusive to the S8.

14. Jackdaw

Posts: 66; Member since: Mar 10, 2016

Well if I make a tech, and you want to do the same, you must pay for the rights, as it's not open source. It's common sense.

15. MrElectrifyer

Posts: 3960; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

In this case, you're the one refusing my payment for those rights. That's anticompetitive.

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.