Breaking News
0

U.S. judge says Qualcomm violated antitrust law; appeal planned, shares plunge

Stock MarketsMay 22, 2019 03:42PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: A sign on the Qualcomm campus is seen, as chip maker Broadcom Ltd announced an unsolicited bid to buy peer Qualcomm Inc for $103 billion, in San Diego

By Sayanti Chakraborty and Jan Wolfe

(Reuters) - Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) Inc illegally suppressed competition in the market for smartphone chips by threatening to cut off supplies and extracting excessive licensing fees, a U.S. judge ruled, a decision that could force the company to overhaul its business practices.

The decision issued late Tuesday night by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, caused Qualcomm shares to plunge 12.5 percent on Wednesday.

"Qualcomm's licensing practices have strangled competition" in parts of the chip market for years, harming rivals, smartphone makers, and consumers, Koh wrote in a 233-page decision.

She ordered the San Diego-based company to renegotiate licensing agreements at reasonable prices, without threatening to cut off supplies, and ordered that it be monitored for seven years to ensure its compliance.

Qualcomm said it will immediately ask Koh to put her decision on hold, and also seek a quick appeal to the federal appeals court in California.

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

Koh's decision followed a 10-day non-jury trial in January, and is a victory for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which has accused Qualcomm in 2017 of violating antitrust law.

The decision followed Qualcomm's April 16 settlement of a long-running legal battle with Apple Inc (NASDAQ:AAPL), where Apple agreed once again to use Qualcomm chips in its iPhones, displacing Intel Corp (NASDAQ:INTC).

It is unclear whether the sanctions will be challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice, which has taken a different view of the case than the FTC and emerged as an ally to Qualcomm.

On May 2, the Justice Department argued Koh should hold a hearing before placing sanctions on Qualcomm. Placing stringent conditions on the company would "reduce competition and innovation in markets for 5G technology," the agency said.

The courts are not required to defer to the Justice Department's recommendations. But "the possibility certainly exists for Qualcomm to prevail upon appeal," given the government's "somewhat schizophrenic" approach to the case, Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon wrote.

The Justice Department was not immediately available for comment on Wednesday.

UNDERMINING RIVALS

Koh said Qualcomm engaged in "extensive" anticompetitive conduct targeting more than one dozen original equipment manufacturers including Apple, BlackBerry, Huawei, Lenovo, LG, Motorola (NYSE:MSI), Samsung (KS:005930), and Sony, often by cutting off or threatening to cut off chip supplies or withholding technical support.

She also said Qualcomm's monopoly power in modem chips enabled the company to sustain "unreasonably high" royalty rates not justified by its contributions to the marketplace.

"With practices that result in exclusivity and eliminate opportunities to compete for OEM business, Qualcomm undermines rivals in every facet," she wrote.

She also found Qualcomm knew its licensing practices harmed competition "yet continued anyway" despite government investigations in China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the European Union and the United States.

"This evidence of Qualcomm's intent confirms the court's conclusion that Qualcomm's practices cause anticompetitive harm because no monopolist monopolizes unconscious of what he is doing," she wrote.

Koh also said testimony from some Qualcomm witnesses "lacked credibility," faulting Chief Executive Steve Mollenkopf and others for giving "long, fast, and practiced narratives" and saying company emails and notes contradicted his testimony.

Koh said Qualcomm cannot bundle patent licensing deals with its hardware, a practice regulators called "no license, no chips." That ruling could give chip customers more leverage in negotiations over patent terms and result in lower royalty rates for Qualcomm.

Koh also said Qualcomm must license its patents to rival chipmakers like MediaTek Inc.

Qualcomm argued during the trial that it achieved market dominance through technological leadership. The company began its licensing business in the 1980s and 1990s, decades before it began selling chips, and has charged broadly similar patent rates since then.

Qualcomm also argued that the FTC failed to show harm to competition, arguing that the chip industry is thriving and prices are declining.

The company's next move will likely be to request Koh's ruling is put on hold while the company seeks expedited review by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Qualcomm makes cellphone processors and modem chips, but generates most profits by licensing its technology to mobile phone makers.

"Qualcomm's customers and competitors will finally be able to negotiate licenses without the threat of having Qualcomm cut off their chip supply," FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra said in statement https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1522180/tatement_of_commissioner_chopra_ftc-qualcomm_5-22-19.pdf.

Rasgon, the Bernstein analyst, said Koh had indicated at trial she was leaning against Qualcomm, but some investors had hoped her views would be "softened" by the Apple settlement.

"Apparently not," Rasgon wrote.

U.S. judge says Qualcomm violated antitrust law; appeal planned, shares plunge
 

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind: 

  • Enrich the conversation
  • Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed.
  • Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically.
  •  Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and links within a comment will be removed
  • Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user.
  • Don’t Monopolize the Conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also believe strongly in giving everyone a chance to air their thoughts. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments
Jason Mitmesser
Jason Mitmesser May 22, 2019 1:57PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Looks like QCOM failed to disclose the invention in the Patent, of which they have 130,000 of.  Failing to disclose means the judge thinks QCOM is trying to have a monopoly...yes, yes indeed QCOM is trying to have a monopoly.  So QCOM needs to fire the lawyers who wrote up their Patent Claims in a confusing way - too confusing for this judge to be able to understand.   Hopefully QCOM learns the lesson - to file fewer Patents, and use SIMPLE LANGUAGE AND DISCLOSE THE INVENTION CLEARLY.  And judges in the future must go easy on American companies.....be hard nosed with foreign ones.   QCOM to $150 by Christmas.  They still have a monopoly people !!!
Jason Mitmesser
Jason Mitmesser May 22, 2019 10:15AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Idiot judge. Should be fired. Patent system set up by our founders is meant to give a monopoly for 20 years in exchange for disclosing the invention, and this judge is saying “u cant really have a monopoly”..... wow. Has her brain fallen out?
Andrew Hook
Andrew Hook May 22, 2019 10:15AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
like donald you are an expert on justice, patent, commerce . You have the monopoly of ignorance and think it is a knowledge. You proud of it ?
William Torpey
William Torpey May 22, 2019 9:50AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
So, Qualcomm wants to manufacture chips that they have patents for, but the FTC, and the Judge, say they must allow other companies to thrive by making Qualcomm chips, too! Am I the only one that thinks this is nuts?
David Wong
David Wong May 22, 2019 9:10AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
It is not over. Judge is wromg and this will be over ruled soon.
Fred Smith
Fred Smith May 22, 2019 7:53AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
Just ignore judges in USA. They have no power
Swiggsy McZiggsy
Swiggsy McZiggsy May 22, 2019 6:53AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
This is what happens when you don't comply with what the Administration dictates. Qualcomm better ban all China business relations like how everyone else is or more of these sorts of articles will surface.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Disclaimer: Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. All CFDs (stocks, indexes, futures) and Forex prices are not provided by exchanges but rather by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual market price, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Therefore Fusion Media doesn`t bear any responsibility for any trading losses you might incur as a result of using this data.

Fusion Media or anyone involved with Fusion Media will not accept any liability for loss or damage as a result of reliance on the information including data, quotes, charts and buy/sell signals contained within this website. Please be fully informed regarding the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, it is one of the riskiest investment forms possible.
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email