Qualcomm Appeals FTC Antitrust Ruling

Qualcomm has asked a federal judge not to enforce her antitrust ruling against the firm so that it can appeal the case.

“After radically restructuring its business relationships [as would be required by the ruling], Qualcomm will not be able to return to its pre-injunction business in an orderly fashion,” a Qualcomm statement notes. “Nor will it be able to unwind licensing agreements it has renegotiated in the shadow of an order that is later overturned.”

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Citing “serious legal questions,” Qualcomm believes it can win an appeal of the dramatic antitrust ruling against it. The case basically hinges on how Qualcomm licenses its intellectual property, including in many cases multiple chipsets, to mobile device makers. The court ruled that Qualcomm’s prices were too high, and that the firm was abusing its monopoly power. But Qualcomm, perhaps unexpectedly, has a different take.

“Qualcomm is the developer and enabler of foundational technologies for the wireless industry,” as a website devoted to its defense explains. “Our inclusive, flexible licensing and mobile technology transfer program ensures rapid technology advancement and competition across the ecosystem. Through standards development and our broad licensing program, we make our breakthroughs available to licensees who use them to develop products.”

According to Qualcomm, it has invested over $57 billion, or about 20 percent of its annual revenues each year, in the technologies it licenses to others. The firm doesn’t keep its inventions, which are covered by over 130,000 patents and patent applications. Instead, it licenses them so that partners can build unique solutions of their own.

“Today, Qualcomm has hundreds of agreements, and more than 11 billion licensed mobile devices have shipped worldwide,” it continues. “Thanks to the Qualcomm team and collaboration within the entire mobile industry, the next generation of wireless, 5G, debuted a year ahead of schedule. Mobile has not only become the world’s largest technology platform, it has achieved that scale faster than any technology in human history. Our technology transfer program works.”

As for the case itself, Qualcomm says it “strongly disagrees” with “irreparably flawed” FTC case, which it says is “lacking any plausible theory of competitive harm.”

“Mobile handset makers repeatedly testified that Qualcomm had the best chips available, while even Intel testified that Qualcomm R&D drives the pace of cellular innovation,” it says. “This is the very essence of competition – innovation and superior products. Contrary to the FTC’s claims, Qualcomm’s licensing model promotes, rather than harms, competition in the mobile chip industry, and more broadly the global mobile industry is thriving and competitive. The agency demonstrated no harm to competition, while other testimony portrayed a chip market that is thriving, dynamic, and innovative with intense competition, declining prices, improved chip performance, and declining Qualcomm market share. Qualcomm looks forward to the opportunity to be heard on appeal.”

Tagged with

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Conversation 8 comments

  • chaad_losan

    29 May, 2019 - 7:42 pm

    <p>Too bad it's over.</p>

  • toukale

    29 May, 2019 - 8:01 pm

    <p>The issue is not about who has the best modern, it had everything to do with the way they tie their ip licensing with their chips. Essentially using their dominance in one area to prop up another area. Essentially Qualcomm Snapdragon chip is dominating because of their ip, that's all. They essentially doing what Microsoft of the 90's were doing, but in their case its even worse. Microsoft did not have a government provided monopoly in the form of patents, because that's what being rewarded with a standard patent is, a government granted monopoly.</p><p><br></p><p>Qualcomm would not be in this if they did not have a chip business, same as Apple is now with spotify when they launched the Apple music streaming. The remedy is for Qualcomm to separate their chip from their ip licensing, then we will see how good their snapdragon chips stand to fare on their own. As usual, greed got them in trouble. That is usually the case with every big corporations, it's not good enough to have a good business that makes money, the need to continue to grow is not sustainable for any company. </p>

  • DBSync

    29 May, 2019 - 9:20 pm

    <p>Qualcomm to Judge – We know you spent 4 months coming to a decision, but you are so wrong….BTW can you not spank us.</p>

  • proesterchen

    30 May, 2019 - 6:49 am

    <p>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Qualcomm will not be able to return to its pre-injunction business" </span></p><p><br></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">You mean your </span><em style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">illegal </em><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">previous business model? No s#!t, Sherlock, that's kind of the point. </span></p>

    • wright_is

      Premium Member
      01 June, 2019 - 4:39 am

      <blockquote><em><a href="#431527">In reply to proesterchen:</a></em></blockquote><p>Exactly</p>

  • jchampeau

    Premium Member
    30 May, 2019 - 10:45 am

    <p>It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. On the one hand, any company with revenues and reach like Qualcomm's should be carefully looked at. But on the other hand, there are some really cheap but decent phones out there with Qualcomm chips in them.</p>

  • BrianEricFord

    31 May, 2019 - 8:00 pm

    <p>The evidence usually DOES sound pretty strong when it’s coming from the lawyers of the side that has no interest or advantage in admitting the flaws of their arguments or the validity of the claims against them.</p><p><br></p>

  • wright_is

    Premium Member
    01 June, 2019 - 4:38 am

    <p>Erm, isn't the whole point of such a judgement that the company has acted illegally and it should change its ways? So not being able to do business as it used to after the ruling is exactly what the ruling is meant to do!</p>

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2023 Thurrott LLC