Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jackmore who wrote (146911)	12/10/2006 3:09:12 AM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Nothing is ever as "black and white" as one would contend. Many of Broacom's arguments were incomplete or miss directed towards their specific cause. That doesn't necessarily mean an alternative (more direct and complete) antitrust attack would also fail. Here's a place where those top lawyers failed to deliver and a place where your case gets supported because of misdirected argument ... Broadcom alleges there is a dangerous probability that Qualcomm will exclude Broadcom and others from the UMTS chipset market and obtain monopoly power. This conduct will harm competition in the UMTS chipset market. As a cumulative consequence of this and Qualcomm’s other anticompetitive conduct, Qualcomm has undermined the ability of independent UMTS chipset manufacturers such as Broadcom to compete against Qualcomm in the UMTS chipset market. This and Qualcomm’s other conduct have undermined competition for UMTS chipsets. The effect is to prevent competition to the detriment of both would-be competitors such as Broadcom and consumers. Qualcomm’s royalty rate discrimination has the effect of harming, competition in the UMTS chipset market. Qualcomm has also foreclosed competition for UMTS chipsets through the use of discounts, marketing incentives, and other rewards. The absence of details as to the size of the UMTS market, who participates in the UMTS market, and Qualcomm’s share of that market shows that (1) the amended complaint lacks sufficient allegations of anticompetitive conduct to sustain a claim for attempted monopolization, and (2) Broadcom has not sufficiently illustrated that Qualcomm has a dangerous probability of succeeding in monopolizing the UMTS market. The Court recognizes that Qualcomm, as holder of patents essential to the UMTS standard, and Broadcom as the entity seeking access to the patents do not approach license negotiations as equals. However, “the elements of Sherman Act violation do not inhere in failed negotiations.” Intergraph Corp., 195 F.3d at 1361. “It is not the judicial role to readjust the risks in high-stakes commercial dealings.” Id. at 1362. The Court recognizes that as alleged by Broadcom, Qualcomm agreed to license its patents on FRAND terms, and is now refusing to honor this promise. While this “agreement” may give rise to liability based on another theory such as breach of contract, it does not give rise to antitrust liability. “The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.” Spectrum Sports Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 458 (1993) (emphasis in original). Qualcomm’s conduct may engender ill-will, but it must have threatened injury to competition — not just competitors — to give rise to antitrust liability for attempted monopolization. See Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 225 (1993) (stating act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws). While the technology licensing terms offered by Qualcomm may be restrictive and costly to Broadcom, that the terms impose a burden on companies wishing to compete with Qualcomm in the UMTS chipset market does not make such conduct anticompetitive for purposes of the antitrust laws. ---> What part needs to be reread? <--- It's tough judicial sledding but maybe all of it ???