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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VinnieBagOfDonuts who wrote (148853)	9/2/2018 7:26:47 AM
From: JeffreyHF	4 Recommendations Recommended By Lance Bredvold lml ryhack VinnieBagOfDonuts Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197204

Florian is a biased non-lawyer shill, but Koh does concern me. Under ETSI FRAND commitments chip level licenses are not required, and decades of industry pattern and practice have normalized device level consolidated royalties. It's disappointing the current FTC is so aggressively pursuing this case through its staff attorneys. What would happen to the SEPs that are practiced at the infrastructure or handset level, rather than that of the modem? What of those non-SEPs that are commercially important? I would question whether the FTC has the standing to bring a pure contract case against Qualcomm. That is a "legal" rather than "equitable" cause of action, and if consumer harm and anti-trust principles are irrelevant, how would the FTC, and by extension Koh, have the jurisdiction to address them? Such a case would need to be brought by an allegedly aggrieved chipset manufacturer, and only if they can establish they are "third party beneficiaries" to the FRAND commitments made to the SSO, not by the FTC. And, Qualcomm would have a right to jury trial. Since Apple charges $75 more for an iPad with LTE than without, how much of that additional $75 should be fairly charged by QTL as royalties for all of those chip level inventions? Qualcomm's Response and Brief In Opposition will be interesting and important.

To: VinnieBagOfDonuts who wrote (148853)	9/2/2018 11:14:14 AM
From: JeffreyHF	9 Recommendations Recommended By JGoren Jim Mullens Lance Bredvold lml manning18 and 4 more members Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 197204

Having now read the Motion, the FTC is claiming that since the TIA and ATIS are located in the U.S., the interpretation of obligations made to 3GPP and ETSI, under the controlling French law, are irrelevant, and U.S. courts should independently define FRAND obligations under U.S. law without regard to the intent and understanding of the overarching FRAND commitments made by Qualcomm to the primary international bodies. That seems specious and back-asswards to me. The derivative and collateral commitments made by Qualcomm to TIA and ATIS cannot be, and were not intended to be, more stringent than those made to ETSI and 3GPP, but rather their interpretation must be determined by French law, the interpretations of the relevant international bodies, and decades of industry custom and usage.

To: VinnieBagOfDonuts who wrote (148853)	9/2/2018 1:49:31 PM
From: Jim Mullens	1 Recommendation Recommended By qbull Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197204

Vinnie, re: Foss on FTC may open up wireless chipset market................... “....didn't Qualcomm used to license chip makers?...” Yes, that’s my understanding also along with my recollection that with the BRCM and MediaTek “agreements” a “license” to manufacture 3G/4G chipsets was no longer required from QCOM. However, those agreements did not exempt device manufacture customers of BRCM / MediaTek from the requirement to have a QCOM license. Given the above, why would it be necessary for any chipset mfg to be a QCOM licensee?

To: VinnieBagOfDonuts who wrote (148853)	9/4/2018 12:25:42 AM
From: VinnieBagOfDonuts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197204

am trying to track down Law article on this FTC Says Qualcomm Is Obligated To License To Rivals Law(August 31, 2018) The Federal Trade Commission pressed ahead with its challenge of Qualcomm’s licensing practices on Thursday, asking a California federal court to find that the company is required to license its standard essential patents to rival chipmakers through promises it made with the organizations that adopted them. The FTC filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue, which is central to its case alleging Qualcomm illegally maintained its monopoly over baseband processors used in cellphones through its broader licensing practices. According to the commission, companies voluntarily agree to license SEPs on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, terms when the standards are adopted by standard setting organizations. But the agency said Qualcomm has not lived up to its obligations when it comes to its cellular chips. “In breach of these contractual commitments, Qualcomm has rejected requests from modem-chip competitors to license patents essential to practicing these standards,” the motion said. “As a matter of California contract law, Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments under the terms of these policies mean that it must make licenses to relevant cellular SEPs available to competitors.” The agency noted that it’s not seeking a ruling on the competitive impact of the refusals or on Qualcomm’s duty to deal with competitors under antitrust law, which will be addressed at trial. Rather, the agency said it’s seeking summary judgment “on a narrow legal issue relevant to evaluation of Qualcomm’s conduct.” It’s asking for a ruling that the company’s so-called FRAND obligations require it to license the relevant patents to competing chipmakers. “As the FTC also alleged, and as evidence at trial will show, Qualcomm’s breach of those commitments contributed to its ability to tax its competitors’ sales and maintain its monopoly in markets for modem chips,” the partially redacted motion said. The FTC lodged its suit in January 2017 after the antitrust watchdog voted 2-1 to sue Qualcomm and seek an injunction to stop the chipmaker's licensing practices. The agency claims the company illegally maintained its monopoly over baseband processors, which are semiconductor chips used in cellphones, in violation of the antitrust laws. In addition to refusing to license its SEPs to competing chipmakers, Qualcomm is also accused of using its dominance in the semiconductor market to wrench higher royalties and anti-competitive licensing terms from cellphone makers. In its motion on Thursday, the agency said Qualcomm made commitments with the Telecommunications Industry Association and the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions over several patents that were adopted as SEPs for 2G, 3G and 4G cellular technology. The standards are for modem chips that allow handsets to communicate over the cellular networks. The agency argued that these terms include unambiguous obligations for Qualcomm to provide licenses to any company that requests them and said the commitments serve as a binding contract. “The court should grant partial summary judgment that Qualcomm’s simple, clear promises to ATIS and TIA require Qualcomm to make licenses on FRAND terms available to competing modem-chip sellers whose products implement or practice the relevant standards,” the motion said. “The court should do so both to resolve a purely legal question and to streamline the trial in this matter.” The FTC suit was followed by a flurry of private litigation against Qualcomm that was consolidated in California’s Northern District in April 2017 before U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh. Earlier this week, Judge Koh nixed a bid by the private plaintiffs for an injunction that would have blocked Qualcomm from pursuing a patent infringement case that could force Apple to import only iPhones with Qualcomm's chipsets. A representative for the FTC declined to comment Friday. Representatives for Qualcomm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The FTC is represented in-house by Jennifer Milici, Joseph R. Baker, Geoffrey M. Green, Nathaniel Hopkin, Rajesh S. James, Philip J. Kehl, Daniel Matheson, Kenneth H. Merber and Mark J. Woodward. Qualcomm is represented by Robert A. Van Nest, Eugene M. Paige and Justina Sessions of Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP; Gary A. Bornstein and Yonatan Even of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP; and Willard K. Tom, Richard Taffet and Geoffrey T. Holtz of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., case number 5:17-cv-00220, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California