Qualcomm Becomes Target Of EU Anti-Trust Regulators
Qualcomm recently got into trouble with the Chinese government, which decided to investigate numerous American companies based on anti-trust and national security concerns. Now, the EU regulators may be doing the same after they have finally decided to respond to a four-year-old anti-trust complaint made against Qualcomm by Icera, a modem company acquired by Nvidia three years ago.
The main accusation made by Icera is that Qualcomm used both patent-related incentives and exclusionary pricing of its chips to stop its customers from doing business with Icera. Until now, though, the complaint was ignored by the EU Commission. It is possible that the fact that China was investigating Qualcomm over anti-trust issues also prompted the EU Commission to see if there's any truth to these accusations.
It also happens that an EU Court upheld a 1.1 billion euro fine against Intel over similar accusations in a case that started years ago. It's not uncommon for the EU to build a case for several years to make sure it's gotten everything right and only then go to court if the vendor refuses to pay the fine (as in Intel's case).
Back in 2006, Ericsson and Texas Instruments also made a complaint against Qualcomm, but in 2010 the companies dropped the complaint, so the EU Commission closed the case. This time, however, it seems Qualcomm won't get off so easily, and the Commission may open a new case against Qualcomm after the summer is over.
Over the past few years, Qualcomm, formerly known primarily as a modem maker, has seen rapid growth in the mobile industry, beginning with the company making the first 1 GHz mobile processor and then continuing with high-performance, battery-efficient chips that had integrated LTE modems. That advantage over the competition gave Qualcomm a big head start in LTE markets and made it almost the default choice for most OEMs.
There have been clear benefits for OEMs going with Qualcomm's chips, so it's still unclear as to what exactly Qualcomm did wrong here, and how. But market leaders tend to become less than nice to the competition when they're at the top, especially if they want to keep that position and have the power to easily squash any rising threat.
Until the EU opens a full investigation into Qualcomm to see what is real and what is not and makes public more details, it's hard to know whether the accusations are exaggerated or if Qualcomm did indeed try to hurt the competition in some less-than-legal ways.
Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.
Well secret payments ( bribes) maybe ok for you but it is not good for competition and not good for the economy. What is next? targetted killings against the competition because you can't compete? It is funny how the so many champion the free market as long as it suits them.
Intel secretly paid computer manufacturers to buy only intel CPUs from Intel..
Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to stop or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.
That maybe ok to happen in the USA with the Failed DOJ, failed other regulator agencies but its not ok in the EU.
Well secret payments ( bribes) maybe ok for you but it is not good for competition and not good for the economy. What is next? targetted killings against the competition because you can't compete? It is funny how the so many champion the free market as long as it suits them.
Intel secretly paid computer manufacturers to buy only intel CPUs from Intel..
Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to stop or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.
That maybe ok to happen in the USA with the Failed DOJ, failed other regulator agencies but its not ok in the EU.
I don't even understand your comment. The question is if the EU wins does is NV entitled to any of it since they own icera? I'm saying they should get their just rewards for being screwed by qcom. Voted down for that? LOL. You can read many of my posts in here about Intel screwing AMD and saying Intel should have been made to pay them $20-30B since they made $60B during the time it all happened. THAT would deter them from doing this crap again. They will continue to cheat with small slaps on the wrist that are FAR less than the profits they get from screwing the AMD's, Icera's etc. You apparently didn't understand my point.
Having said that, the EU is essentially taxing these companies. They don't pay a check to the company that gets screwed. They keep it themselves, which is why I said what I said about the EU. Their suits would mean a LOT more if they gave the money they took to the people who go SCREWED. If EU wins the case Nvidia should get money, but we all know that won't happen. That is the point. I'm hoping qcom gets screwed here, you happy now? But my problem with it is Icera (thus NV) won't see a dime of the ridiculously high fine EU would try to get for their own pockets.
Where in my post did it say I was ok with backroom tactics and bribes? Ridiculous. Exactly the opposite is true, but the problem is the money usually doesn't go where it should after the case is resolved.
Well secret payments ( bribes) maybe ok for you but it is not good for competition and not good for the economy. What is next? targetted killings against the competition because you can't compete? It is funny how the so many champion the free market as long as it suits them.
Intel secretly paid computer manufacturers to buy only intel CPUs from Intel..
Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to stop or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.
That maybe ok to happen in the USA with the Failed DOJ, failed other regulator agencies but its not ok in the EU.
I don't even understand your comment. The question is if the EU wins does is NV entitled to any of it since they own icera? I'm saying they should get their just rewards for being screwed by qcom. Voted down for that? LOL. You can read many of my posts in here about Intel screwing AMD and saying Intel should have been made to pay them $20-30B since they made $60B during the time it all happened. THAT would deter them from doing this crap again. They will continue to cheat with small slaps on the wrist that are FAR less than the profits they get from screwing the AMD's, Icera's etc. You apparently didn't understand my point.
Having said that, the EU is essentially taxing these companies. They don't pay a check to the company that gets screwed. They keep it themselves, which is why I said what I said about the EU. Their suits would mean a LOT more if they gave the money they took to the people who go SCREWED. If EU wins the case Nvidia should get money, but we all know that won't happen. That is the point. I'm hoping qcom gets screwed here, you happy now? But my problem with it is Icera (thus NV) won't see a dime of the ridiculously high fine EU would try to get for their own pockets.
Where in my post did it say I was ok with backroom tactics and bribes? Ridiculous. Exactly the opposite is true, but the problem is the money usually doesn't go where it should after the case is resolved.
No you pretend that it is tax. It is not tax. They worked out how much it effected the the folk in the EU. These fines were conservative as you can see. They were made to make it hurt alittle. You seem to be confused yourself about the size of the fine and tax and all these other things.
Lets look at this example. You shoot a terrorist dead. You are a hero. You shoot your neighbor dead because you don't like him. You are a criminal. It is all to do with the scenario. It is a killing or a murder.
It is clear to me there is a difference. Maybe to you because they are both dead it means the same.I guess some folk are not suppose to be playing with fire arms.
The other thing you don't understand is that the fine is against the the behavior against the EU. It is not about AMD. It is AMD who can go and go after specific damages themselves. Though more likely AMD is too incompetent to seek legal advice to seek redress of Intel's criminal behavior.
The other thing you don't understand is that the fine is against the the behavior against the EU. It is not about AMD. It is AMD who can go and go after specific damages themselves. Though more likely AMD is too incompetent to seek legal advice to seek redress of Intel's criminal behavior.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/11/12/intel-settles-amd-court-case-pays-1-25-bill/1
You don't even seem to know what is happening. Case already over, and while Intel pocketed $60bil during the AMD screwing, AMD ends with 1.25B. They will continue to harm the competition as long as those are the numbers. I would too, it's just good business clearly.
The problem is HARMING the competition (weakening consumer choices), which in the end harms the consumers. I'm not against a much LARGER fine (as indicated, I said AMD deserved 30Bil), IF it actually went to the companies that were harmed by the behavior. You fix the behavior by helping the competition that got screwed (hand that check to THEM), not helping yourself to a company tax. That kind of fine would help the competition keep competing. Fining the company in this case just pads their wallet, it does nothing to help the competition who got harmed in the first place. If you fine me 1.25B when I'm making $20B+ over the time I harmed you (check Qcom's profits over the last 4yrs), I'll keep harming you yearly...LOL. Intel made $60B and in the end paid 1.25B for harming AMD (little companies like AMD don't have the resources to battle for years more to get what they really should get, you don't seem to understand this). I'll take that fine every 10yrs too every single time as I crush the competition and keep getting richer...LOL. Now if someone would have forced Intel to give AMD a check of $30Bil, maybe they'd think twice about harming again. As I said, EU fines do nothing but pad wallets, not stop the problem from occurring again and again. The point of justice in these cases should be to stop the bad behavior and compensate the harmed (companies) so competition can keep going strong and in the end consumers benefit.
Not even going to bother with your other junk comment.