Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

The groundless attack on Qualcomm's business practices

I read a lot on the subject of Qualcomm's business practices regarding the pending FTC and Apple cases and I really can’t find anything controversial, much less illegal in the way Qualcomm is doing business. I know that I’ll be accused of oversimplifying the matter but I’m gonna say it anyway. Qualcomm sets its prices and nobody is forced to by from them, also it has its intellectual property rights on its inventions that are regulated by the law. Does it really matter howe that price is formulated? You can easily calculate the real price the customers pay for a chip, by calculating the total licensing prices divided by the number of chips bought. OK, I get it that when you count licensing in the overall price is more expensive than the competition, but it’s not like anybody is forcing anybody to by from Qualcomm, nor is anybody banning anybody from producing chips. It’s like when you by a car, every car drives, but there is a big difference between a Ferrari and a Corolla.

by
| 1471 views | | 17 replies (last )
Post ID: @X9JWmzP
Comment! It's anonymous! Reply to this post anonymously by submitting the form near the bottom of the page!

17 replies (most recent on top)

"FTC doesn't believe its own case..."

You do know that the minority dissenting opinion you reference is by a person no longer serving as a FTC commissioner, right?

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-2jox

There is no monopoly.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1nzy

@ 1pov Apple does not want to pay royalty based on percentage of cost of phone. They want to pay a fixed amount. The China deal was 4% of 2/3 of the selling price of phone, which is going to far more than $7.50. Qcom is already giving Apple a discount by only charging $7.50, but Apple wants to pay only $1.50. Without the modem, the iPhone is an iPod, which costs $200. Considering how much less iPod touch costs, modem is the most important aspect of a phone.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1icz

FTC doesn't believe its own case...

https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2017/01/dissenting-statement-commissioner-maureen-k-ohlhausen-matter-qualcomm-inc

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1ptp

How's it a groundless attack? By everyone out there??

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1yvy

Everybody knows Qualcomm’s declining reflects declining of total wireless industry.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1bab

OP are you knowledgeable of US and international law? Traffic law (I got a speeding ticket yesterday)?

Please educate me how you arrived at your statement "I really can’t find anything controversial, much less illegal in the way Qualcomm is doing business"

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1kaa

I have this terrible feeling that my retention bonus will be worth very little if I wait for it.

WHY WAIT just send my resume to FAANGs now and get RSUs with future value

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1dxh

X9JWmzP-1ukh, regarding your comment that china accepted the Qualcomm business model as valid. They only accepted it at lower prices (royalties). That's all Apple asked for, a lower price, $1.50 instead of $7.50. Simple, so why has Qualcomm refused?

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1pov

What BS. News flash at the end of my rant.

OP analysis is of a biased Qualcomm engineer who is ignorant of law. If you and I sign a contract for you to pay me to do something illegal, say murder someone, are you off the hook? After all, we had a contract and no one made me sign it, so no fault of yours. We both broke laws.

Did Qualcomm break laws? The court will decide, not us.

As already stated, Qualcomm has lost in several other countries for breaking similar anticompetition, anticonsumer and other laws, using the same failed arguments. Guess what, the United States has similar laws, and Qualcomm no new defense. Doesn't bode well, does it.

News flash, Qualcomm paid to suppress a competitor, to put then out of business. If the court says so we are toast.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1zki

Whether Q wins or loses, Q will end up with no customers!

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1vid

What other countries are doing is irrelevant to what's happening in the U.S. Court is not going care about that. But if you want to talk about what's going on in other countries, Germany and China have agreed to ban certain iPhone sales. And regarding the fine they paid to China, China still agreed their business model is valid. They just agreed to a lower percentage.

Apple pays $7.50 for the modem to Qcom, and because of this, the FTC claims the iPhone costs too much. Apple wants to pay only $1.50. Without the modem, the phone is essentially useless, and Apple wants to pay peanuts for it.

Apple could have continued with the Infineon modem, but asked Qcom for $1 bln if they wanted their modem on an iPhone without any guarantee on how many they'd buy. Qcom did NOT offer $1 bln as a bribe. To this, Qcom asked for exclusivity in exchange for a lower modem price. This was a normal business deal. Intel could have offered the modem at a lower price. Apple could have dual sourced. Both agreed to this deal.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1ukh

Title of OP's post will be QTL's epitaph.

All death row inmates are innocent too, just ask them.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-1jjt

The Hillary payout was a joke. There was no doubt the speech was for a payout but having her come in to speak to women at a women's event and then have the male GC hijack the event only asking his questions about China was another d--k move of his. I was in the audience and was appalled at his total lack of care that he completely changed the agenda of the talk to serve his own personal ego-centric purposes. Multiply this times what he probably does to each meeting and agenda each day and we can start to get the picture.

Look at the legal wins since he took over and then tell me why he still has a job.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-ntv

Could all the payouts be because of the GC's dumb--s policy of settling? He's weak and ineffective.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-sje

Clearly you are not a lawyer. Or even up to date on current events. Note that your armchair analysis isn’t really important, only the FTC’s.

Oh... but maybe you didn’t know that Qualcomm has already been fined for their anticompetitive practices before? Here’s a summary:

$975 million in China;

$850 million in Korea;

$1.2 billion by the European Commission; and

$773 million in Taiwan.

They were also found to be in violation of Japanese competition law.

It’s a conspiracy! Right? Poor innocent Qualcomm!

Should I also list the $7.5m they paid to settle allegations it violated Forwign Corrupt Practices and bribery laws by hiring younger relatives of Chinese officials? Or the fact that they paid $335,000 to Hillary for a one hour speech as a way to grease her favor if she won the election? Nah, let’s stick to only one type of shady behavior for now. But I’ve got plenty more where that came from. This company is so crooked, SM could eat soup with a corkscrew.

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-vmw

Nice try Steve

by
|
Post ID: @X9JWmzP-ckw

Post a reply

: