I'm guessing this is over 5G chips since 5G is supposed to be an internet renaissance and Qualcom is holding all the chips. (Pun Intended)

bugThe real question (at least for me) here, is why does Intel care? They're not into the same market as Qualcomm anymore. Or is this prompted by Qualcomm's intent to enter the laptop market with Snapdragon 8cx?

Also, yes, Qualcomm has been accused of not offering reasonable licensing for their IP. But at the same time, they have also won injunctions against competition all around the world against competition's improper use of their IP as well (all the way up to Apple). So it seem's to me they're par for the course overall ;)

Because thery are trying to get in tot he computer side of things and not just phones and a like, and if they can do it at 12 the power usage well that''s a great threat to intel and AMD for that matter.

So Intel is accusing someone else of not playing fair and not just „vindicate its intellectual property rights, but rather to drive competition out of the market for premium [modem] chips, and to defend a business model that ultimately harms consumers.“ Luckily that isn't coincidently ex·act·ly how Intel's practices could be circumscribed ever since!

That's a bit much, isn't it? Oh, the irony …
That's precisely what Intel did ever since. Intel not just vindicated its intellectual property rights like the X86-µArch, but used it to drive every competition out of the market to exclusively sell their premium chips (the Intel inside™-brand comes to mind…) as a monopolist for horrendously overblown prices while ultimately harm customers for decades.


Smartcom

bugThe real question (at least for me) here, is why does Intel care? They're not into the same market as Qualcomm anymore. Or is this prompted by Qualcomm's intent to enter the laptop market with Snapdragon 8cx?

Also, yes, Qualcomm has been accused of not offering reasonable licensing for their IP. But at the same time, they have also won injunctions against competition all around the world against competition's improper use of their IP as well (all the way up to Apple). So it seem's to me they're par for the course overall ;)

They care because Apple is using their 4G modems. If they are banned, they lose their only (one that I know of) client.

Man, this thread. :shadedshu:

This Intel Newsroom article goes back almost two years revolving around everyone and their dog having to pay money to Qualcomm for 3G, 4G, and soon 5G radios because Qualcomm owns patents that have been generally enforced. Even if you design and manufacture your own wireless radios, you still have to pay Qualcomm for every chip sold to license their patents.

Everyone is jumping on the anti-Qualcomm bandwagon because pillars of modern technology are so ubiquitius that patents should be moved to the public domain (or bare minimum, license fees should be reasonable and not stifling). Apple ended up in court because it outright refused to keep paying Qualcomm for what is fundamentally Apple's own technology. The fact Apple would rather go to court paying legal fees and potential damages over paying the license is a pretty strong indicator of how absurd Qualcomm licensing fees are.

ARM is not public domain and nor is x86. Intel's reasons for putting this article up have nothing to do with CPUs. Intel is trying to raise awareness and public discourse so FTC decides against Qualcomm:

IntelOpening arguments in the Federal Trade Commission case will begin Jan. 4.

bugThe real question (at least for me) here, is why does Intel care?

Products like the Microsoft Surface are sold with 4G antennas. For every chip Intel produces with one, they have to pay Qualcomm a license fee.

I tried to find out how much the license is costing and turned up this link:
www.cnet.com/news/qualcomm-cuts-cap-for-phone-licensing-fees-hopes-to-settle-with-apple-this-year/

Previously, Qualcomm capped the value of handsets, which its royalty is based on, at $500, even if a device sold for double that. But the new cap, which will be "broadly implemented" in its fiscal fourth quarter that ends in September, will be $400. That new cap would benefit partners like Apple and Samsung, which sell some of the priciest, and highest volume, phones on the market. The iPhone X, for instance, starts at $999, but Apple would pay a royalty rate equivalent to that of a $400 phone.

From this, we can garner that the license fee isn't a fixed amount per device, it's based on the MSRP of the device as sold to customers. We also know that Qualcomm is trying to appease Apple, Samsung, and Intel by capping the amount of MSRP they collect fees on.

Digging deeper, another source:
finance.yahoo.com/news/apples-qualcomms-ugly-fight-may-end-drawing-blood-214616652.html

At the heart of the dispute is a patent royalty of as much as 5% per device that Qualcomm has long charged every phone handset manufacturer for every phone sold worldwide, regardless of whether it contains a Qualcomm product inside it.

5% of $400 = $20 to Qualcomm of every $400 + device and that's just in fees, not actually hardware to do it. That's significant and might be the motive behind Apple pushing for more expensive phones (they keep a larger share of every phone sold).

IDK but, Qualcomm made something vital to mobile uses, right? Now, everyone uses it, right?

That makes Qualcomm bad, right?

:kookoo:
They should be able to charge whatever they like. Apple does, Intel does, even AMD. ASUS, MSI, and all! Sure Tech manufacturing has cost but, the cost to the consumer is crazy since there are 1000's of people, pushing paper around, on the payroll.

Some say the corporate structure works, unless you are the cog, or the consumer.

:lovetpu:

ArjaiIDK but, Qualcomm made something vital to mobile uses, right? Now, everyone uses it, right?

That makes Qualcomm bad, right?

:kookoo:
They should be able to charge whatever they like. Apple does, Intel does, even AMD. ASUS, MSI, and all! Sure Tech manufacturing has cost but, the cost to the consumer is crazy since there are 1000's of people, pushing paper around, on the payroll.

Some say the corporate structure works, unless you are the cog, or the consumer.

:lovetpu:

It's the cap that's harmful to consumers, incentivizes phone makers to hike up prices since they are no longer penalized for hiking prices to whatever they can get away with.

ArjaiIDK but, Qualcomm made something vital to mobile uses, right? Now, everyone uses it, right?

Because entire global networks were built around the proprietary tech. Now there's no choice except to pay Qualcomm. And this is perpetual because of backwards compatibility. 5G is going to require Qualcomm license fees because 5G supports 4G and 3G backwards compatibility. There's literally no escaping Qualcomm fees. Even in the case of Apple where they claim to have reverse engineered and developed their own solution, Qualcomm sued and won. The entire wireless market is Qualcomm's bitch because they managed to patent it first. It's a monopoly with global reach.

Perhaps Apple and Samsung wouldn't have sued if it were a reasonable license fee (e.g. fixed $5/device). The fact it is MSRP-based, even though the technology being licensed doesn't change based on MSRP, makes Qualcomm's pricing scheme very unreasonable.


Qualcomm already lost one FTC lawsuit with the FTC ordering Qualcomm to license modem tech to competitors (this is what Intel got in trouble for and to this day, is enforced).

If Qualcomm were allowed to keep its standard essential patents to itself, the court wrote, it would enable the company “to achieve a monopoly in the modem chip market and limit competing implementations of those components.”

The ruling means that Qualcomm has to license patents necessary for building a smartphone modem to competing companies, like Intel. Until now, Qualcomm has only offered those licenses to companies that directly manufacture smartphones, and it seems that Qualcomm only did that when it was directly selling chips to them.

That’s meant that a company like Intel, which badly wants to compete with Qualcomm in this market, has had to work around Qualcomm’s patents in order to sell modems of its own. And it means that a company like Apple or Samsung, that wants to sell a ton of smartphones, has largely had to rely on Qualcomm’s chips in order to do so.

Qualcomm's patents are the reason why Intel's 4G chips underperform Qualcomm. Intel has to deliberately make them less efficient by not doing things Qualcomm has a patent for because Qualcomm refuses to license the patents to Intel.


The next FTC lawsuit the OP is about is whether or not Qualcomm established a trust and abused their market position. This includes determining whether or not Qualcomm's licensing fees are "reasonable."

A Christmas Gift: Intel Acquires Qualcomm

Ahahahaha. Oh Intel, you're funny.

TotallyIt's the cap that's harmful to consumers, incentivizes phone makers to hike up prices since they are no longer penalized for hiking prices to whatever they can get away with.

So... Qualcomm should charge even more for their IP, because it's their responsibility to keep phone prices in check? Is that what you're saying?

Another point which most are not aware of - Qualcomm earns more from licensing than they do from selling silicon. According to their most recent quarterly report, earnings before taxes for Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (division which sells silicon) in 2018 was $2.966 billion whereas Qualcomm Technology Licensing for the same period was $3.525 billion. And this is despite the fact that Qualcomm is still around 50% market share on cellular baseband.

Basically, don't discount the message just because of who it's coming from. Especially in this case as Intel is actually still a rather minor player in terms of market share here - they aren't even listed on most reports, instead simply falling in the remnant 'other' category behind Qualcomm, Samsung LSI, and Mediatek.

FreedomEclipseThat is something intel is trying to change. Some asus tablets and mobile phones already have intel atom CPUs. They are few and far between but they are definitely there

Also via is looming on the horizon so they are also seeking to take market share away from everyone else. Though they probably won't be able to gain much ground as they are too small to take on the big dogs in the current market

You should see the squirming youth justifying the purchase with a father's account.

bugSo... Qualcomm should charge even more for their IP, because it's their responsibility to keep phone prices in check? Is that what you're saying?

Not saying it's their responsibility, I'm saying they capped their royalties at the behest of Apple/Samsung/other handset makers with clout. I just wonder what arm twisting(if any) or undisclosed amounts of money was involved.

TotallyNot saying it's their responsibility, I'm saying they capped their royalties at the behest of Apple/Samsung/other handset makers with clout. I just wonder what arm twisting(if any) or undisclosed amounts of money was involved.

Well, they were convicted because their license fees were too high. Maybe that has something to do with lowering that bar? Though I really don't know, I haven't followed those lawsuits closely.

bugWell, they were convicted because their license fees were too high. Maybe that has something to do with lowering that bar? Though I really don't know, I haven't followed those lawsuits closely.

well closer than I have, arm twisting it is.

For those who missed Rossman's video on it, it's been going on some time. Although Apple complainingg is some thing even more crazy than Intel complaining.

FordGT90ConceptThe entire wireless market is Qualcomm's bitch because they managed to patent it first.

I mean, isn't that the point of patents, in essence?

R-T-BI mean, isn't that the point of patents, in essence?

Patents are meant to help recover R&D costs, not create monopolies. Qualcomm got the former a long time ago and it has moved into the latter. Have some light reading.

Arnold B. SilvermanIt should be noted that antitrust violations can not only be employed defensively against a claim of patent infringement, but also can be asserted in a civil action seeking damages and can become the subject of criminal action.

FordGT90ConceptPatents are meant to help recover R&D costs, not create monopolies. Qualcomm got the former a long time ago and it has moved into the latter. Have some light reading.

I agree they aren't meant to create monopoloies but they certainly are meant to incentivize r&d, much more than just "recover the cost."

However whatever line there may be I agree Qualcomm crossed it long ago. Just playing some friendly devils advocate...