On Friday, the US government reviewed GM's abuse of market monopoly. Apple, which has worked with Qualcomm for many years, also sent executives to testify.
The case was heard in the District Court in San Jose, California.Tony Blevins, Apple's vice president and FTC witness, said: Apple does not want to use only baseband chips from Qualcomm.
In exchange for the exclusive use of its chips, Qualcomm will provide a certain amount of rebates, so that the cost of equipment is not so high. The end result is that Apple was forced to kick the Intel baseband out.iPadMini 2 .
It was hoped that the iPad Mini 2, code-named J86, would be a good start for long-term cooperation between the two companies.However, when he met with Qualcomm President Christiano Amon in 2013, he found that things were not that simple.
Amon bluntly told Blevins that Qualcomm chips will be Apple's only choice, and I can make your company affordable.
Apple, who was extremely dissatisfied with this, immediately launched the Project Antique program.Looking for a second baseband chip supplier that can replace Qualcomm, thereby reducing the shackles of Qualcomm.
Blevins said - this is no longer a level playing field like before!
In January 2017, the FTC launched a lawsuit against Qualcomm.Including Apple, Intel,HuaweiLarge companies such as Lenovo and Lenovo have expressed their dissatisfaction with Qualcomm's business model.
The outcome of the trial may have a significant impact on Qualcomm's consolidation of its hegemonic business model. But for consumers, things may not change too much immediately, such as lowering the price of 5G smart phones.
The FTC accused Qualcomm of abusing its dominance and forcing its opponents to withdraw and damaging market competition.Because the company's "no authorization, no chip" policy, forcing companies to pay high patent licensing fees before buying and using Qualcomm chips.
For Qualcomm's toughness, the FTC commented that it not only hurts competition in the past, but also drags on future 5G network speeds and chipset prices.
For this matter, Qualcomm did not immediately respond to the self-assessment request of foreign media.But Blevins testified that:
As early as 2005, the company has already been preparing for eachiPhoneWhen I needed about 1000 parts, I saw the tycoon policy of Qualcomm 'no license, no chip supply' for the first time.
To make matters worse, Qualcomm asked Apple to cross-authorize its intellectual property and let Qualcomm have the right to use it.
We don't understand why it is necessary to sign such a license agreement when purchasing a component from them. I don't understand who will affect the interests of this person.
Obviously, Apple’s dissatisfaction with Qualcomm is increasing day by day, eventually leading to two companies splitting up and going to court, and the lawsuits against each other have been sawing for several years.