Qualcomm requests stay to antitrust ruling as it seeks appeal

Posted:
in General Discussion
Qualcomm in a filing on Tuesday asked Judge Lucy Koh to temporarily hold off on the enforcement of provisions outlined in an antitrust ruling handed down last week, arguing remedial action could irreparably harm the company's licensing strategy as it prepares an appeal.

Qualcomm


Though it has not yet lodged an appeal, Qualcomm in a motion to stay Koh's ruling said it is confident of a successful outcome with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reports Reuters.

Qualcomm argues Koh's recent decision in favor of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission raises "serious legal questions," including the omission of key evidence germane to its original argument.

Notably, Koh did not consider events after March 2018, specifically Apple's switch away from Qualcomm to Intel modems in iPhone production. The move could have proved Qualcomm was not exploiting its dominant power in the market to gain favorable licensing terms with vendors and manufacturers. Further, Qualcomm took issue with the FTC's argument that the chipmaker was in essence imposing a tax on customers, saying the assertion is unprecedented in antitrust law, the report said.

In her ruling, Koh ordered Qualcomm "must not condition the supply of modem chips on a customer's patent license status" and "must negotiate or renegotiate license terms with customers in good faith under conditions free from the threat of lack of access to or discriminatory provision of modem chip supply or associated technical support or access to software." Further, the company must make "exhaustive SEP licenses available to modem-chip suppliers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ('FRAND') terms," "may not enter express or de facto exclusive dealing agreements for the supply of modem chips" and must not stymie communication between a customer and a government agency about law enforcement or regulatory matters.

Finally, Koh ordered compliance and monitoring for seven years, with Qualcomm forced to report to the FTC on an annual basis.

If remedies proposed by Koh are allowed to go through, Qualcomm could be forced into irreversible patent licenses with rival chipmakers. Further, the company has concerns about selling chips to unlicensed customers and renegotiating existing contracts, reports FOSS Patents.

"After radically restructuring its business relationships, Qualcomm will not be able to return to its pre-injunction business in an orderly fashion," the motion reads. "Nor will it be able to unwind licensing agreements it has renegotiated in the shadow of an order that is later overturned."

If the motion to stay fails, Qualcomm can attempt the same with the Ninth Circuit.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    bonobobbonobob Posts: 204member
    Qualcomm in a filing on Tuesday asked Judge Lucy Koh to temporarily hold off on the enforcement of provisions outlined in an antitrust ruling handed down last week, arguing remedial action could irreparably harm the company's licensing strategy as it prepares an appeal.
    The whole point of this trial is to "irreparably harm the company's licensing strategy", so no, this ruling should not be stayed.
    radarthekat1stjbdragon
  • Reply 2 of 15
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,706member
     The point of this trail was not to “irreparably harm“ Qualcomm’s licensing strategy; it was put a stop to their illegal double-dipping and clear monopoly abuse. But I'm glad you agree that the ruling should not be stayed.

    As you note, there’s very little chance Judge Koh is going to accept this request,  and I doubt the Ninth Circuit is going to go along with that either.  The FTC proved its case beyond a shadow of a doubt; read Judge Koh’s summary if you don’t believe me. 

    Qualcomm should just grow some ethics and accept that what they were doing was illegal, rather than waste millions of dollars on appeals  that are a) not going to work and b) never getting to the Supreme Court. 
    edited May 29 jbdragon
  • Reply 3 of 15
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 837member
    Judge Koh is always popping up as the judge for Apple's cases. Can anyone list all the Apple-related trials Judge Koh has been assigned to and what their result was? I know she was appointed by Obama. Does that help Apple, that's she's appointed by a Dem and Apple leans heavily Dem? And does it hurt Apple that she was once quoted as saying Apple was "smoking crack?"
  • Reply 4 of 15
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 674member
    "Apple's switch away from Qualcomm to Intel modems in iPhone production. The move could have proved Qualcomm was not exploiting its dominant power in the market to gain favorable licensing terms with vendors and manufacturers."

    I think they'd be very foolish to use this as an example of merit as it is very easily shown to be the exact opposite. Apple licensing with Qualcomm is not proof that their model is fair, it's proof that they lack competition.

    chasm1stjbdragon
  • Reply 5 of 15
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,706member
    Judge Koh is always popping up as the judge for Apple's cases. Can anyone list all the Apple-related trials Judge Koh has been assigned to and what their result was? I know she was appointed by Obama. Does that help Apple, that's she's appointed by a Dem and Apple leans heavily Dem?
    You may find this hard to believe, given your rose-coloured glasses, but judges generally (not all of the time, I'll grant you) try to judge each case according to the merits of the case and their interpretation of the law. Judge Koh has been assigned numerous tech-related cases (not just those involving Apple) because she's one of three Article III judges in the San Jose courthouse, which is where a lot of tech cases get tried because of its proximity to Silicon Valley.

    She has ruled against Apple innumerable times in various cases, and for them innumerable times in others. I would remind you -- just as an example -- that she was the judge who oversaw the reduction of fines against Samsung down to essentially nothing. Is that because she is Korean?! LOL

    Her peers and the lawyers who appear before her seem to believe that she is disciplined and tough but fair. Do you have any evidence that she unduly favours "leans Dem" companies (that would be every company in Silicon Valley, btw)? Have you reported your evidence to the bar?

    No? Then sit down and shut up.
    edited May 29 FileMakerFellermuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 6 of 15
    YvLyYvLy Posts: 82member
    .... "then sit down and shut up" .... HO HO HO ... You know what a forum is, don't you?
    edited May 29 jbdragonFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 7 of 15
    pujones1pujones1 Posts: 155member
    chasm said:
    Judge Koh is always popping up as the judge for Apple's cases. Can anyone list all the Apple-related trials Judge Koh has been assigned to and what their result was? I know she was appointed by Obama. Does that help Apple, that's she's appointed by a Dem and Apple leans heavily Dem?
    You may find this hard to believe, given your rose-coloured glasses, but judges generally (not all of the time, I'll grant you) try to judge each case according to the merits of the case and their interpretation of the law. Judge Koh has been assigned numerous tech-related cases (not just those involving Apple) because she's one of three Article III judges in the San Jose courthouse, which is where a lot of tech cases get tried because of its proximity to Silicon Valley.

    She has ruled against Apple innumerable times in various cases, and for them innumerable times in others. I would remind you -- just as an example -- that she was the judge who oversaw the reduction of fines against Samsung down to essentially nothing. Is that because she is Korean?! LOL

    Her peers and the lawyers who appear before her seem to believe that she is disciplined and tough but fair. Do you have any evidence that she unduly favours "leans Dem" companies (that would be every company in Silicon Valley, btw)? Have you reported your evidence to the bar?

    No? Then sit down and shut up.
    Thanks. I was wondering what former President Obama or politics had to do with this case. FLAWLESS REBUTTAL (in my best Mortal Kombat voice). Lol. 
    chasm
  • Reply 8 of 15
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,682member
    This is code for our stock is going to be hammered so we need to delay this as long as possible.
    MplsPjbdragonchasmFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 9 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,302member
    I did find this mention a little surprising, tho perhaps I should not have been.

    "Notably, Koh did not consider events after March 2018, specifically Apple's switch away from Qualcomm to Intel modems in iPhone production. The move could have proved Qualcomm was not exploiting its dominant power in the market to gain favorable licensing terms with vendors and manufacturers" 

    I don't think it plainly PROVED anything but ignoring it entirely seems wrong. 
  • Reply 10 of 15
    genovellegenovelle Posts: 982member
    bonobob said:
    Qualcomm in a filing on Tuesday asked Judge Lucy Koh to temporarily hold off on the enforcement of provisions outlined in an antitrust ruling handed down last week, arguing remedial action could irreparably harm the company's licensing strategy as it prepares an appeal.
    The whole point of this trial is to "irreparably harm the company's licensing strategy", so no, this ruling should not be stayed.
    You’re right, it should not be stayed being that Thier entire licensing strategy is based on hostage taking 
    chasm
  • Reply 11 of 15
    1st1st Posts: 394member
    Fat chance. Just Qcom lawyer try to justify their existence.  
  • Reply 12 of 15
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,733member
    chasm said:
     The point of this trail was not to “irreparably harm“ Qualcomm’s licensing strategy; it was put a stop to their illegal double-dipping and clear monopoly abuse. But I'm glad you agree that the ruling should not be stayed.

    Well, their licensing strategy is illegal double dipping and monopoly abuse, so it's all one and the same.

    gatorguy said:
    I did find this mention a little surprising, tho perhaps I should not have been.

    "Notably, Koh did not consider events after March 2018, specifically Apple's switch away from Qualcomm to Intel modems in iPhone production. The move could have proved Qualcomm was not exploiting its dominant power in the market to gain favorable licensing terms with vendors and manufacturers" 

    I don't think it plainly PROVED anything but ignoring it entirely seems wrong. 
    I'm just guessing, but it may depend on when the suit was filed. of course one could also bring in the fact that Apple was forced to go back to them because they're the only viable 5G modem vendor, so they'd better be careful what they wish for.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    Apple went back to Intel modems only because it was forced to as Qualcomm refused to sell to Apple as part of a wider negotiation tactic. I wonder if this tactic did actually succeed, and that was why Apple settled with Qualcomm before the trial finished. Apple just needed access to the 5G modems.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    gatorguy said:
    I did find this mention a little surprising, tho perhaps I should not have been.

    "Notably, Koh did not consider events after March 2018, specifically Apple's switch away from Qualcomm to Intel modems in iPhone production. The move could have proved Qualcomm was not exploiting its dominant power in the market to gain favorable licensing terms with vendors and manufacturers" 

    I don't think it plainly PROVED anything but ignoring it entirely seems wrong. 
    Sadly, the cost of examining every single aspect of a case is often too high (in time, attention span and other limited resources) for the court to bear. As such, cases are examined for their key considerations and both sides are required to limit the arguments they make and the evidence they provide to support those arguments. The same thing happened in Apple v Samsung and in Oracle v Google. If Qualcomm thought their argument relating to Apple being able to switch providers had sufficient merit, they would have used that as one of the key points in the trial. They didn't; one reason could be that the trial started before that date (which I believe it did) and the judge had already ordered a narrowing of the case - and if the case has already been narrowed, a subsequent request to add new evidence from contemporaneous events will get short shrift unless it is exceedingly obvious that it will significantly alter the courts' perception of the situation. I think EsquireCats is right - Qualcomm raising this as a defence now is a two-edged sword, since Intel's exit from the market has now factually proven that other suppliers have been incapable of competing with QC in the modem space, and there's a very persuasive argument that QC's business practices have led to this result.
Sign In or Register to comment.