• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

European Commission Fines Qualcomm €997M for Abuse of Dominant Market Position

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,235 (7.55/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
The European Commission has fined Qualcomm €997m for abusing its market dominance in LTE baseband chipsets. Qualcomm prevented rivals from competing in the market by making significant payments to a key customer on condition it would not buy from rivals. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "Qualcomm illegally shut out rivals from the market for LTE baseband chipsets for over five years, thereby cementing its market dominance. Qualcomm paid billions of US Dollars to a key customer, Apple, so that it would not buy from rivals. These payments were not just reductions in price - they were made on the condition that Apple would exclusively use Qualcomm's baseband chipsets in all its iPhones and iPads.

This meant that no rival could effectively challenge Qualcomm in this market, no matter how good their products were. Qualcomm's behaviour denied consumers and other companies more choice and innovation - and this in a sector with a huge demand and potential for innovative technologies. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules and why we have taken today's decision."

Qualcomm's practices and the market for LTE baseband chipsets
Baseband chipsets enable smartphones and tablets to connect to cellular networks and are used both for voice and data transmission. LTE baseband chipsets comply with the 4G Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard.

Qualcomm is by far the world's largest supplier of LTE baseband chipsets. But there are other chip manufacturers active in this market - Intel (the largest supplier for chipsets used in computers), in particular, has tried to challenge and compete with Qualcomm for customers.

Then as today, Apple was a key customer for LTE baseband chipsets, being an important maker of smartphones and tablets with a premium brand image worldwide. In 2011, Qualcomm signed an agreement with Apple, committing to make significant payments to Apple on condition that the company would exclusively use Qualcomm chipsets in its "iPhone" and "iPad" devices. In 2013, the term of the agreement was extended to the end of 2016.

The agreement made clear that Qualcomm would cease these payments, if Apple commercially launched a device with a chipset supplied by a rival. Furthermore, for most of the time the agreement was in place, Apple would have had to return to Qualcomm a large part of the payments it had received in the past, if it decided to switch suppliers. This meant that Qualcomm's rivals were denied the possibility to compete effectively for Apple's significant business, no matter how good their products were. They were also denied business opportunities with other customers that could have followed from securing Apple as a customer.

In fact, internal documents show that Apple gave serious consideration to switching part of its baseband chipset requirements to Intel. Qualcomm's exclusivity condition was a material factor why Apple decided against doing so, until the agreement came to an end. Then, in September 2016, when the agreement was about to expire and the cost of switching under its terms was limited, Apple started to source part of its baseband chipset requirements from Intel. But until then, Qualcomm's practices denied consumers and other companies the benefits of effective competition, namely more choice and innovation.

Breach of EU antitrust rules
Qualcomm's practices amount to an abuse of Qualcomm's dominant position in LTE baseband chipsets by preventing competition on the merits.

Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.

Today's decision concludes that Qualcomm held a dominant position in the global market for LTE baseband chipsets over the period investigated (i.e. between at least 2011 and 2016). This is based in particular on its very high market shares, amounting to more than 90% for the majority of the period. The market is also characterised by high barriers to entry. These include the research and development expenditure required before a supplier can launch an LTE chipset and various barriers related to Qualcomm's intellectual property rights.

Qualcomm has abused this market dominance by preventing rivals from competing in the market. It did so by making significant payments to a key customer on condition that it would exclusively use Qualcomm chipsets. The issue with such an arrangement is not that the customer receives a short-term price reduction, but that the exclusivity condition denies rivals the possibility to compete.

Based on a variety of qualitative and quantitative evidence, the Commission found that both consumers and competition have suffered as a result of Qualcomm's conduct. This assessment took into account, among other things:
  • the extent of Qualcomm's dominant position;
  • the significant amounts paid by Qualcomm in exchange for exclusivity;
  • a broad range of contemporaneous evidence (including Apple's internal documents) that Qualcomm's payments reduced Apple's incentives to switch to rivals;
  • the importance of Apple as a customer in the market for LTE baseband chipset suppliers: Apple accounts for a significant share of LTE chipset demand (on average one third). Apple is also a leading smartphone and tablet manufacturer, which can influence other customers' and manufacturers' procurement and design choices. By making sure that rivals had no chance to compete for any of Apple's important business, Qualcomm's conduct had an effect on the LTE baseband chipset market as a whole; and
  • that Qualcomm did not demonstrate that the exclusivity condition created any efficiencies, which could have justified Qualcomm's practices.
The Commission also assessed and rejected a "price-cost" test submitted by Qualcomm. The Commission concluded that the results of this test failed to support Qualcomm's claim that its exclusivity payments were not capable of having anti-competitive effects.

On this basis, the Commission concluded that Qualcomm's illegal practice had a significant detrimental impact on competition. It excluded rivals from the market and deprived European consumers of genuine choice and innovation.

Consequences of the Decision
The fine in this case of € 997 439 000 takes account of the duration and gravity of the infringement, and is aimed at deterring market players from engaging in such anti-competitive practices in the future. The fine represents 4.9% of Qualcomm's turnover in 2017.

In accordance with the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on fines (see press release and MEMO) the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Qualcomm's direct and indirect sales of LTE baseband chipset in the European Economic Area (EEA). The duration of the infringement established in the decision is five years, six months and 23 days.

The Commission has also ordered Qualcomm to not engage in such practices or practices with an equivalent object or effect in the future.

Background
Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement prohibit abuse of a dominant position.

The Commission opened its investigation on 16 July 2015. On 8 December 2015, the Commission sent to Qualcomm a Statement of Objections setting out its preliminary concerns, followed by a letter sent in February 2017 setting out additional factual elements relevant to the final decision. Qualcomm's rights of defence have been fully respected in this case. In addition, in light of the evidence in the Commission's case file pointing to the harm to competition caused by Qualcomm's conduct, the Commission concluded that this case satisfied the criteria for being dealt with as a priority in line with the Commission Communication on Guidance on Enforcement Priorities to focus on those cases that are most harmful to consumers.

Separately, on 8 December 2015, the Commission also sent Qualcomm a Statement of Objections concerning potential predatory pricing. This investigation is ongoing, and its outcome cannot be prejudged at this stage.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
4,550 (0.91/day)
funny to see Apple suing about unpaid royalty rebates, also would be interesting to see what happens with thievery lawsuit against Intel and apple filed by Qualcomm.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,110 (0.18/day)
I'm an European but I'm really starting to doubt these EU decisions. A billion from Microsoft, one from Intel, one from Apple, now from Qualcomm. A billion here, a billion there, more and more this starts to look like extortion fees for companies being able to sell in the EU...
 

the54thvoid

Super Intoxicated Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
13,048 (2.39/day)
Location
Glasgow - home of formal profanity
Processor Ryzen 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI MAG Mortar B650 (wifi)
Cooling be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4
Memory 32GB Kingston Fury
Video Card(s) Gainward RTX4070ti
Storage Seagate FireCuda 530 M.2 1TB / Samsumg 960 Pro M.2 512Gb
Display(s) LG 32" 165Hz 1440p GSYNC
Case Asus Prime AP201
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply be quiet! Pure POwer M12 850w Gold (ATX3.0)
Software W10
I'm an European but I'm really starting to doubt these EU decisions. A billion from Microsoft, one from Intel, one from Apple, now from Qualcomm. A billion here, a billion there, more and more this starts to look like extortion fees for companies being able to sell in the EU...

No, they're huge fines for huge corporations. Don't confuse extortion and a very 'not free' market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fx

FreedomEclipse

~Technological Technocrat~
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
24,050 (3.74/day)
Location
London,UK
System Name DarnGosh Edition
Processor AMD 7800X3D
Motherboard MSI X670E GAMING PLUS
Cooling Thermalright AM5 Contact Frame + Phantom Spirit 120SE
Memory 2x32GB G.Skill Trident Z5 NEO DDR5 6000 CL32-38-38-96
Video Card(s) Asus Dual Radeon™ RX 6700 XT OC Edition
Storage WD SN770 1TB (Boot)| 2x 2TB WD SN770 (Gaming)| 2x 2TB Crucial BX500| 2x 3TB Toshiba DT01ACA300
Display(s) LG GP850-B
Case Corsair 760T (White) {1xCorsair ML120 Pro|5xML140 Pro}
Audio Device(s) Yamaha RX-V573|Speakers: JBL Control One|Auna 300-CN|Wharfedale Diamond SW150
Power Supply Seasonic Focus GX-850 80+ GOLD
Mouse Logitech G502 X
Keyboard Duckyshine Dead LED(s) III
Software Windows 11 Home
Benchmark Scores ლ(ಠ益ಠ)ლ
I'm an European but I'm really starting to doubt these EU decisions. A billion from Microsoft, one from Intel, one from Apple, now from Qualcomm. A billion here, a billion there, more and more this starts to look like extortion fees for companies being able to sell in the EU...

Some organisations just cant sleep at night unless all of their board members have swimming pools that are filled with money chilling in their back gardens at night.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,110 (0.18/day)
No, they're huge fines for huge corporations. Don't confuse extortion and a very 'not free' market.

Well the thing is that Qualcomm and Apple are American companies that fabricate their products in China. What does the EU have to do with any deal between these companies as long as they only sell their products here and not produce them? What does the EU have to do with Apple an American company and what suppliers it chooses to operate with in China and why it does so? I don't know but a billion euros sounds nice, right?
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,764 (3.96/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
I'm an European but I'm really starting to doubt these EU decisions. A billion from Microsoft, one from Intel, one from Apple, now from Qualcomm. A billion here, a billion there, more and more this starts to look like extortion fees for companies being able to sell in the EU...
Well, in this case it seems Qualcomm has done exactly what Intel did years ago to keep builders from using AMD: they applied rebates on sold products/licenses. EU was just being consistent.
But it's funny how Apple can sue for unpaid illegal licensing rebates.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
1,232 (0.22/day)
Location
CO
System Name 4k
Processor AMD 5800x3D
Motherboard MSI MAG b550m Mortar Wifi
Cooling ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 240
Memory 4x8Gb Crucial Ballistix 3600 CL16 bl8g36c16u4b.m8fe1
Video Card(s) Nvidia Reference 3080Ti
Storage ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 1TB
Display(s) LG 48" C1
Case CORSAIR Carbide AIR 240 Micro-ATX
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar STX
Power Supply EVGA SuperNOVA 650W
Software Microsoft Windows10 Pro x64
So where does the money go from these fines? Mainly to the lawyers?
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,110 (0.18/day)
Well, in this case it seems Qualcomm has done exactly what Intel did years ago to keep builders from using AMD: they applied rebates on sold products/licenses. EU was just being consistent.
But it's funny how Apple can sue for unpaid illegal licensing rebates.

Yeah but the thing is that Intel has a manufacturing plant in Ireland, hence Intel is a European manufacturer. Those rebates were probably also directed at some European builders. Apple has no such thing, as far as I know, they only have data centers and other businesses in Ireland, no Apple products are made on European soil. Qualcomm also as far as I know is manufacturing its products in China and Taiwan. So what jurisdiction does the EU have over these things happening on the American and Asian continents? What's going to happen next? The European Commission is going to fine Mitsubishi because it had a deal with Yamaha in Osaka, Japan over opening a new manufacturing plant in Mogadishu, Africa?
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,235 (7.55/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
So where does the money go from these fines? Mainly to the lawyers?

Spa treatments and overpriced croissants of eurocrats.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
191 (0.05/day)
Location
Denmark
System Name NorthBlackGoldDream
Processor Ryzen 7600X
Motherboard Gigabyte B650M-DS3H
Cooling Arctic Freezer II 240
Memory 16 GB DDR5-5200C40
Video Card(s) GTX 1080 Ti 11 GB
Storage 1 TB NVMe PCIe 3.0
Display(s) 24.5" 240 Hz TN
Case Fractal North Black Mesh
Power Supply 650W
I think a lot of you guys are missing the point here. The EC is built as a safeguard for those companies that wish to sell to the EU. As soon as you step into the EU market, you have to play by our rules, regardless of where you are "from". Just because Apple and Microsoft have offices in Ireland for tax reasons - doesn't make them Irish, don't be daft.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,110 (0.18/day)
I think a lot of you guys are missing the point here. The EC is built as a safeguard for those companies that wish to sell to the EU. As soon as you step into the EU market, you have to play by our rules, regardless of where you are "from". Just because Apple and Microsoft have offices in Ireland for tax reasons - doesn't make them Irish, don't be daft.

Yeah, exactly that's why I was saying this is an extortion tax to be able to sell in the EU. Don't get me wrong, I am not really defending Qualcomm here. I quote from Engadget: "In 2015 Qualcomm was hit with a $975 million anti-monopoly fine in China, in 2016, the Korea Fair Trade Commission slapped it with a $854 million fine for unfair patent licensing practices, and in October 2017, Taiwan's Fair Trade Commission fined the company the equivalent of $774 million for abusing market dominance." As you can see they received similar fines in China and Taiwan because they have manufacturing plants there, under their jurisdiction. They received a fine in Korea for patent licensing, something unrelated to this but which probably was related to a blue, giant, Korean manufacturer. This shows that Qualcomm's business practices are a bit shady, to say the least. What I don't understand is how the European Commission can fine two American companies over a deal that probably took place on the American continent, on U.S. soil, regarding manufacturing being done on the Asian continent, in China. If the U.S. or China fined them over this I would have nothing against that but they are being fined by someone who has no jurisdiction over these matters. And Qualcomm knows all this and it will still pay the fine, although it's not truly legal, because Qualcomm still wants to sell its products in Europe. So if the only reason for the fine being paid, is that Qualcomm wants to sell in Europe, I think that me defining this as: an extortion tax to be able to sell in Europe, is correct...
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,764 (3.96/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Yeah but the thing is that Intel has a manufacturing plant in Ireland, hence Intel is a European manufacturer. Those rebates were probably also directed at some European builders. Apple has no such thing, as far as I know, they only have data centers and other businesses in Ireland, no Apple products are made on European soil. Qualcomm also as far as I know is manufacturing its products in China and Taiwan. So what jurisdiction does the EU have over these things happening on the American and Asian continents? What's going to happen next? The European Commission is going to fine Mitsubishi because it had a deal with Yamaha in Osaka, Japan over opening a new manufacturing plant in Mogadishu, Africa?
Well, since this is a battle about patents and licensing, maybe a factory of physical goods isn't needed?
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,110 (0.18/day)
Well, since this is a battle about patents and licensing, maybe a factory of physical goods isn't needed?

Read the article again, this has nothing to do with patents and licensing. I quote from the article above: "Qualcomm paid billions of US Dollars to a key customer, Apple, so that it would not buy from rivals. These payments were not just reductions in price - they were made on the condition that Apple would exclusively use Qualcomm's baseband chipsets in all its iPhones and iPads." So Qualcomm met with Apple, presumably in the U.S. where they are located and spoke about how iPhones will be produced in China. Something that might be illegal in the U.S. and/or in China. But my question is: wtf does the E.U. have to do with this?
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
13,764 (3.96/day)
Processor Intel i5-12600k
Motherboard Asus H670 TUF
Cooling Arctic Freezer 34
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 2TB Crucial MX500
Display(s) Dell U3219Q + HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
Read the article again, this has nothing to do with patents and licensing. I quote from the article above: "Qualcomm paid billions of US Dollars to a key customer, Apple, so that it would not buy from rivals. These payments were not just reductions in price - they were made on the condition that Apple would exclusively use Qualcomm's baseband chipsets in all its iPhones and iPads."

Those payments were rebates on royalties Apple owed Qualcomm.

So Qualcomm met with Apple, presumably in the U.S. where they are located and spoke about how iPhones will be produced in China. Something that might be illegal in the U.S. and/or in China. But my question is: wtf does the E.U. have to do with this?

Gee, what does EU have to do with companies doing business within the EU? That's a tough one, I never thought about it.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,110 (0.18/day)
Gee, what does EU have to do with companies doing business within the EU? That's a tough one, I never thought about it.

None of this business was being done in the EU but on other continents. Nothing these two did was related to selling of products, it was strictly related to manufacturing. Those royalties were probably related to US patents filed at the US patent office and spoken of between two US companies, on US soil and if anything illegal happened there it is a matter of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other US agencies to investigate and prosecute. I see people are really thick headed on this forum, I just remembered why I used to barely post here...
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
797 (0.16/day)
Processor Intel
Motherboard MSI
Cooling Cooler Master
Memory Corsair
Video Card(s) Nvidia
Storage Western Digital/Kingston
Display(s) Samsung
Case Thermaltake
Audio Device(s) On Board
Power Supply Seasonic
Mouse Glorious
Keyboard UniKey
Software Windows 10 x64
None of this business was being done in the EU but on other continents. Nothing these two did was related to selling of products, it was strictly related to manufacturing. Those royalties were probably related to US patents filed at the US patent office and spoken of between two US companies, on US soil and if anything illegal happened there it is a matter of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other US agencies to investigate and prosecute. I see people are really thick headed on this forum, I just remembered why I used to barely post here...

“Qualcomm paid billions of US dollars to a key customer, Apple, so that it would not buy from rivals. These payments were not just reductions in price – they were made on the condition that Apple would exclusively use Qualcomm’s baseband chipsets in all its iPhones and iPads.”

Crime doesn't have borders... But why I bother to respond to post Soviet country citizen?
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2012
Messages
3,877 (0.89/day)
System Name Skunkworks 3.0
Processor 5800x3d
Motherboard x570 unify
Cooling Noctua NH-U12A
Memory 32GB 3600 mhz
Video Card(s) asrock 6800xt challenger D
Storage Sabarent rocket 4.0 2TB, MX 500 2TB
Display(s) Asus 1440p144 27"
Case Old arse cooler master 932
Power Supply Corsair 1200w platinum
Mouse *squeak*
Keyboard Some old office thing
Software Manjaro
None of this business was being done in the EU but on other continents. Nothing these two did was related to selling of products, it was strictly related to manufacturing. Those royalties were probably related to US patents filed at the US patent office and spoken of between two US companies, on US soil and if anything illegal happened there it is a matter of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other US agencies to investigate and prosecute. I see people are really thick headed on this forum, I just remembered why I used to barely post here...
Hey, newsflash here...did you know that both qualcomm chipsets and iphones are ....*GASP....SOLD IN EUROPE?!? MIND BLOWN!!!

Do you just assume that, because it references qualcomm paying apple in dollars instead of euros that this had NOTHING to do with european markets? The EU cant fine these companies for their behavior outside of the EU, but surprise surprise, these companies are trying to pull the same BS in the EU that they do in other countries, and since qualcomm attempting conteol of the radio market affects europe, the EU is within their jurisdiction to fine qualcomm. Qualcomm pushing other LTE radio manufacturers affects european handsets just like american ones, these companies being american doesnt make them immune to european anti-competition laws.

Qualcomm was using illegal rebate tactics to control which radios went into iphones and ipads, which are sold in europe. Thus, the EU can fine them for illegally cornering the market on LTE radios for iphones sold in europe. Not that hard to figure out.

Perhaps try reading the article next time? Really helps you to not look like a buffoon.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2015
Messages
1,075 (0.32/day)
Location
Latvija
System Name Fujitsu Siemens, HP Workstation
Processor Athlon x2 5000+ 3.1GHz, i5 2400
Motherboard Asus
Memory 4GB Samsung
Video Card(s) rx 460 4gb
Storage 750 Evo 250 +2tb
Display(s) Asus 1680x1050 4K HDR
Audio Device(s) Pioneer
Power Supply 430W
Mouse Acme
Keyboard Trust
I'm an European but I'm really starting to doubt these EU decisions. A billion from Microsoft, one from Intel, one from Apple, now from Qualcomm. A billion here, a billion there, more and more this starts to look like extortion fees for companies being able to sell in the EU...
And all that money will go for farming and education, science.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
481 (0.13/day)
System Name Diablo | Baal | Mephisto | Andariel
Processor i5-3570K@4.4GHz | 2x Xeon X5675 | i7-4710MQ | i7-2640M
Motherboard Asus Sabertooth Z77 | HP DL380 G6 | Dell Precision M4800 | Lenovo Thinkpad X220 Tablet
Cooling Swiftech H220-X | Chassis cooled (6 fans + HS) | dual-fanned heatpipes | small-fanned heatpipe
Memory 32GiB DDR3-1600 CL9 | 96GiB DDR3-1333 ECC RDIMM | 32GiB DDR3L-1866 CL11 | 8GiB DDR3L-1600 CL11
Video Card(s) Dual GTX 670 in SLI | Embedded ATi ES1000 | Quadro K2100M | Intel HD 3000
Storage many, many SSDs and HDDs....
Display(s) 1 Dell U3011 + 2x Dell U2410 | HP iLO2 KVMoIP | 3200x1800 Sharp IGZO | 1366x768 IPS with Wacom pen
Case Corsair Obsidian 550D | HP DL380 G6 Chassis | Dell Precision M4800 | Lenovo Thinkpad X220 Tablet
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi HomeTheater HD | None | On-board | On-board
Power Supply Corsair AX850 | Dual 750W Redundant PSU (Delta) | Dell 330W+240W (Flextronics) | Lenovo 65W (Delta)
Mouse Logitech G502, Logitech G700s, Logitech G500, Dell optical mouse (emergency backup)
Keyboard 1985 IBM Model F 122-key, Ducky YOTT MX Black, Dell AT101W, 1994 IBM Model M, various integrated
Software FAAAR too much to list
Read the article again, this has nothing to do with patents and licensing. I quote from the article above: "Qualcomm paid billions of US Dollars to a key customer, Apple, so that it would not buy from rivals. These payments were not just reductions in price - they were made on the condition that Apple would exclusively use Qualcomm's baseband chipsets in all its iPhones and iPads." So Qualcomm met with Apple, presumably in the U.S. where they are located and spoke about how iPhones will be produced in China. Something that might be illegal in the U.S. and/or in China. But my question is: wtf does the E.U. have to do with this?

It matters because they sell to EU customers, who may or may not be being ripped off by the anti-competitive actions of (debate-ably, since a hilariously large number of those are registered in UK BIOTs, Ireland or Belgium, nevermind their offices in the EU) non-EU companies.

In addition to that, these sorts of anti-competitive behaviours make it really, really hard for new players (like European-based companies, Jolla Oy, for example) to enter the market.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
2,351 (0.46/day)
Location
Right where I want to be
System Name Miami
Processor Ryzen 3800X
Motherboard Asus Crosshair VII Formula
Cooling Ek Velocity/ 2x 280mm Radiators/ Alphacool fullcover
Memory F4-3600C16Q-32GTZNC
Video Card(s) XFX 6900 XT Speedster 0
Storage 1TB WD M.2 SSD/ 2TB WD SN750/ 4TB WD Black HDD
Display(s) DELL AW3420DW / HP ZR24w
Case Lian Li O11 Dynamic XL
Audio Device(s) EVGA Nu Audio
Power Supply Seasonic Prime Gold 1000W+750W
Mouse Corsair Scimitar/Glorious Model O-
Keyboard Corsair K95 Platinum
Software Windows 10 Pro
Something doesn't seem right about this, why wasn't Apple fined? Reading the proceedings they are at least guilty of collusion, and also what is not to say that they suggested the non compete clause in order to secure lower prices? The fact that they are proving wrongdoing with ONE company, also happens to be Apple to boot, makes me raise an eyebrow. It funny how the article tries to absolve Apple of guilt by citing the desire to switch suppliers and subsequent decision against in 2016 but that just makes me more certain that it was a condition put forth by Apple because why uphold an agreement that is illegal unless they're the ones who put it forth. Pretty sure Qualcomm is taking the fall for Apple here.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
9,436 (3.28/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R9 7900 - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora Edge
Motherboard ASRock B650 Pro RS
Cooling 2x 360mm NexXxoS ST30 X-Flow, 1x 360mm NexXxoS ST30, 1x 240mm NexXxoS ST30
Memory 32GB - FURY Beast RGB 5600 Mhz
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 7900 XT - Alphacool Eisblock Aurora
Storage 1x Kingston KC3000 1TB 1x Kingston A2000 1TB, 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) LG UltraGear 32GN650-B + 4K Samsung TV
Case Phanteks NV7
Power Supply GPS-750C
If anyone would have read the damn thing they would have realized that Qualcomm deserves this fine without doubt.
 

ppn

Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
1,231 (0.36/day)
So how did they prove it wasn't cost reduction or something. Qualcomm should be free to pay apple to use their products if so desire. I mean I don't mind the movie actors paying me to watch their performance, works for me. But that never happens. The government and other parasite structures for collecting money should be abolished.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
576 (0.10/day)
System Name Epsilon
Processor A12-9800E 35watts
Motherboard MSI Grenade AM4
Cooling Stock
Memory 2x4GB DDR4 2400 Kingston Hyper X
Video Card(s) Radeon R7 (IGP / APU)
Storage Samsung Spinpoint F1
Display(s) AOC 29" Ultra wide
Case Generic
Power Supply Antec Earthwatts 380w
Software Windows 10
It's a shame, despite the fine, the damage is already done. It will take some time for the market to stabilize.
When intel had to pay AMD for all the trickery to put them out of the road, it was also too late. Sometimes money isn't the solution. I mean, money helps. But you can't recover lost market with money alone.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,110 (0.18/day)
But why I bother to respond to post Soviet country citizen?

I don't know why you would say that. Maybe your favorite sport is throwing random "insults" to random people, you know nothing about, hoping that it would stick...
 
Top