Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Qualcomm loses antitrust ruling

Judge says chipmaker can’t block rivals, must trim royalties

- TALI ARBEL AND MICHAEL LIEDTKE

NEW YORK — A federal judge has ruled that Qualcomm unlawfully squeezed out cellphone chip rivals and charged excessive royalties to manufactur­ers such as Apple in a decision that undercuts a key part of its business.

The decision vindicates the Federal Trade Commission two years after it filed its antitrust lawsuit against the San Diego chipmaker. It’s a potentiall­y costly setback for Qualcomm, as the decision could slash its ability to extract big royalties from phone-makers.

Qualcomm said Wednesday that it would appeal, suggesting the case still could take a few years to resolve.

“We strongly disagree with the judge’s conclusion­s, her interpreta­tion of the facts and her applicatio­n of the law,” Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg said in a statement.

The outcome seems likely to reduce the licensing fees paid to Qualcomm, but it’s unclear if device-makers will pass on any of their savings and lower their prices. The royalties represent a relatively small portion of smartphone prices that now top $1,000 for some premium models.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., ruled Tuesday that Qualcomm Inc. must renegotiat­e licensing deals with customers. It must license its patents to rival chipmakers at fair prices and can’t sign exclusive agreements that block competitor­s from also selling

chips to smartphone makers like Apple. Qualcomm must submit to trade commission monitoring for seven years.

The case has geopolitic­al ramificati­ons. If Qualcomm suffered a big hit to its profitabil­ity, that could mean less spending on research and developmen­t — a knock to an American tech icon as the U.S. embarks on a politicall­y sensitive race with China to update to 5G, a new wireless technology.

“[President Donald Trump’s] administra­tion views Qualcomm as almost the crown jewel for the U.S. in terms of U.S. technology developmen­t. Similar to the way China views Huawei,” said Angelo Zine, CFRA analyst. “It will be interestin­g to see if this gets revisited.”

Qualcomm’s rivals are

mostly Asian companies, including Huawei, Zine said. The Trump administra­tion has set bruising sanctions against Huawei and pushed European allies not to use the Chinese company’s technology because of nationalse­curity concerns of China spying. The U.S. government is also in a spiraling trade war with China.

The Trump administra­tion’s attitude to Qualcomm can be seen in a case from last year, when it blocked a Singapore company, Broadcom, from buying Qualcomm over concerns about national security and who would dominate 5G technology.

Trade group Computer & Communicat­ions Industry Associatio­n said Tuesday’s ruling was a win for wireless technology, as it would mean more competitio­n.

Qualcomm has justified its “no license, no chips” system as a repayment system for

the $40 billion it has spent through several decades working on wireless technology essential to smartphone­s.

Last month Apple and Qualcomm settled a bitter financial dispute centered on some of the technology that enables iPhones to connect to the Internet. The deal requires Apple to pay Qualcomm an undisclose­d amount. It also includes a six-year licensing agreement that likely involves recurring payments to the chipmaker.

Apple had already lost an earlier battle with Qualcomm in March when a federal court jury in San Diego decided the iPhone maker owed Qualcomm $31 million for infringing on three of its patents.

Qualcomm shares dropped almost 11% to $69.31 on Wednesday.

 ?? AP ?? A sign advertises 5G technology at the Qualcomm booth at the Consumer Electronic­s Show Internatio­nal in Las Vegas in January. Qualcomm’s stock plunged Wednesday after a federal judge’s ruling against the chipmaker in an antitrust case.
AP A sign advertises 5G technology at the Qualcomm booth at the Consumer Electronic­s Show Internatio­nal in Las Vegas in January. Qualcomm’s stock plunged Wednesday after a federal judge’s ruling against the chipmaker in an antitrust case.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States