Qualcomm's patent litigation for Apple was a major benefit, smoothing the potential threat of the 5G era and regaining orders from VIP customers. However, for Qualcomm, their troubles are not over. The patent war with Apple is only one of them, and it is more important than the lawsuit of the US FTC International Trade Commission.
In January 2017, the US FTC announced the prosecution of Qualcomm, accusing Qualcomm of abusing market status and using anti-competitive means to maintain itself in intelligence.Mobile phoneThe monopoly status of the communications and other industries mainly involves the following three points:
· High-pass "No-authorization chip-free" 's policy, other companies want to buy high-pass processors and baseband, provided that patent licenses are signed with Qualcomm.
Qualcomm refused to grant the necessary patent license to its competitors. Although Qualcomm has promised to comply with FRAND (fair, reasonable, non-discrimination) licensing standards necessary patents, they have in fact refused to grant these rights to competitors.
The exclusive supply of power from Apple for licensing fees. Qualcomm has been the exclusive supplier of Apple's base-band chips from 2011 to 2016, and Qualcomm is aware that any company that has won an Apple order will become stronger, So use exclusionary clauses to prevent high-pass competitors from working with Apple.
The three-point appeal of FTC is also the most concerned about mobile phone companies such as Apple. Once the lawsuit is won, it is equivalent to the subversion of the licensing model for Qualcomm, which is fatal for Qualcomm. In this matter, Apple failed to stick to it, but FTC is different from commercial companies. In the past, FTC has beaten Intel in terms of weakening monopoly enterprises.Microsoft, AT&T and other giants.
The patent battle between FTC and Qualcomm is also a long-distance running. The testimony phase ended in January this year, but the verdict has not yet come.
Today, US federal judge Lucy Koh made a judgment in favor of the FTC, arguing that Qualcomm abused the monopoly position in the market for modem chips and smart phones, and stifled the key competition in the modern chip market.
According to Judge Lucy Koh, she asked Qualcomm to renegotiate with partners and customers, must grant its patents to competitors at a fair and reasonable price, and cannot sign exclusive supply agreements with customers such as Apple, and accept them in the next seven years. Supervision.
Lucy Koh's decision was not a slap in the face of Qualcomm, but also caused Qualcomm's share price to plunge at the beginning of the market, the highest drop of 9%.