EU Fines Qualcomm $1.2 Billion for Paying Apple To Use Its Microchips (apnews.com) 112
The European Union on Wednesday slapped a $1.23 billion fine on U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm for abusing its market dominance in the lucrative sector of components in smartphones and tablets for half a decade. From a report: EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said that San Diego-based Qualcomm "illegally shut out rivals from the market" for more than five years by paying key customer Apple to not use chips made by Qualcomm's rivals. Vestager said Qualcomm paid "billions of dollars" to Apple and in the process helped establish itself as the dominant force.
Apple is complicit here (Score:5, Insightful)
But it also served Apple's interests because getting such good terms meant they would get a parts-cost advantage vs all their smartphone competitors while at the same time assuring those competitors would not have a lower-cost alternative available to them from a Qualcomm competitor.
Monopolistic synergy.
Re: (Score:2)
They just had bad attorneys writing up the agreement. It should be something along the lines of a 'volume discount'. Where the the volume needed for terms to kick in are defines as 100% of a customer's business.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the the volume needed for terms to kick in are defines as 100% of a customer's business.
That would be illegal. A few twisted words do not make illegal actions acceptable.
The correct way to do this is to have no written agreement, just a wink and a handshake.
Re:Apple is complicit here (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just normal business that we all engage in
No it isn't. It is NOT illegal to dominate a market. Exclusive agreements are also not illegal. It is the combination of the two that can be illegal.
Qualcomm was allegedly leveraging their dominant position to completely shut out competitors. This is not something that "we all engage in" because very very few of us dominate an industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all they had to do was simply give a lower price instead of getting paid, then giving money back.
Nonsense. If they had just offered Apple a lower price, that would have been legal. But they gave those lower prices with an explicit agreement that Apple would buy only from them. That is also NOT illegal in general, but it is illegal for a company that dominates its market.
When you have a monopoly, or near monopoly, then different rules apply.
Re: Apple is complicit here (Score:2)
Intel has over twice the market cap that Qualcomm has, and yet the the EU is fining Qualcomm (the smaller company) for abusing its "dominant" position, preventing competitors from innovating. Intel makes chips that use far more energy, have serious bugs (meltdown, spectre), and intentional backdoors (Intel Management Engine). That ain't innovation in my eyes -- only the gov't sees these things as "innovation," since they are in the business of clandestine spying, sabotage, and taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel has over twice the market cap that Qualcomm has
Total market cap is irrelevant. Qualcomm dominates the market for cellular chips. Intel dominates the market for desktop/laptop/server CPUs. Neither can illegally exploit their dominance to lock out competitors or expand their monopolyish power to other markets.
Intel has been spanked by the courts for abusing the dominance several times. They have paid fines, and agreed to a consent decree to modify their behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just normal business that we all engage in
No it isn't. It is NOT illegal to dominate a market. Exclusive agreements are also not illegal. It is the combination of the two that can be illegal.
Qualcomm was allegedly leveraging their dominant position to completely shut out competitors. This is not something that "we all engage in" because very very few of us dominate an industry.
Some of the other poster here seem to deliberate try engage in dominating the "dumbass industy"
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the other poster here seem to deliberate try engage in dominating the "dumbass industy"
That is a very competitive market, with plenty of participants, and very few barriers to entry.
Re: (Score:3)
But it also served Apple's interests....
Yes, so I eagerly await the $1.2B fine against Apple for participating in the plot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If Qualcomm offers a fantastic price to be sole supplier, isn't that just good business? I see that in fast food joints all the time. What is so different here?
The difference was a contract term forbidding Apple from using parts from Qualcomm's competitors. This is no different than what Intel did by paying customers not to use AMD processors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if Qualcomm offers a fantastic price to be a sole supplier, isn't that simply good business on Apple's part to accept it? How is getting the part for lowest price a "crime"? Why should Apple be forced to use multiple vendors for the same part, AND pay a higher price? Fast food restaurants do that all the time, most notably for beverages.
Getting the part for the lowest price by itself was not a crime and Apple would not otherwise have been forced to use other vendors. The crime was being forbidden to use other vendors.
How is this different than a customer discount? (Score:3)
It's a strange way of say that apple paid less than the full amount. Perhaps there is something in european law that forbids a discount to a customer, making the mechanism of giving a discount to a customer illegal. But surely, discounting for a large customer is in general legal???
I could imagine some possible conditions that might matter. Qualcom owns many of the standards it's parts implement. In come cases it licences those via FRAND rules in return for the adoption of proprietary methods as the sta
Re:How is this different than a customer discount? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
why is that anti-competitive? could other's not offer similar discounts for loyatly too? that is price competition.
Re: (Score:2)
It is about size, Qualcom dominates the market therefore it is bound not to operate in an anti-competitive way that blocks smaller players from entering the market.
Just like if two small business merge no one cares. However if 2 large companies merge, say google and apple then they would require government approval.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a strange way of say that apple paid less than the full amount. Perhaps there is something in european law that forbids a discount to a customer, making the mechanism of giving a discount to a customer illegal. But surely, discounting for a large customer is in general legal???
Volume or other discounts are not unlawful but tying them to not using your competitor's products is if you have a dominant market position. This is what Intel did to AMD when they were producing the Pentium4 and AMD introduced the better performing Athlon64. Intel ordered its customers not to use AMD's products.
Is that illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it illegal to "pay to play"? How is Qualcomm paying to be an exclusive provider not just a contract agreement of service? I thought this happens in a lot of industries. How is it different to offering a bulk-discount if you buy x million chips from us? (essentially doing the same thing)
I know some grocery stores accept money from companies to guarantee certain shelf-space; for example.
If Qualcomm had paid to guarantee they be used for just 99% of chips supplied would that still be illegal (obviously Apple would just get all from them in that case, because wouldn't make sense to change hardware to allow a second chip for 1% of products).
Re:Is that illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
The key, I believe, is that there was an exclusivity clause in the contract. The EU are very wary of such things (with good reason if you believe that monopolizing practices are harmful).
Now - had the contract been that they would sell X number of chips for a given prices then I suspect that there wouldn't have been a case - whether that X amounted to 100%, 99% or 150% of what Apple used. The problem was that the agreement they reached excluded other manufacturers.
Exclusivity contracts are one of those things that fall into a bit of a market freedom paradox. In a truly free market then they should be possible (because you can sign a contract for anything, right?) but in being available they curtail market freedom once in place.
As a proponent of market freedom (or control) you can fall either side on whether they are a good or bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand the concern here. Is it different though to say...
In 007, Die another Day, every car used in the film had to be a Ford or a Ford subsidiary because Ford paid them. Or when Coke or Pepsi make an agreement with a restaurant chain to be their only provider. Or when an event provider agrees to only employ people from a certain staffing agency. Sure, Restaurant X could start buying Pepsi but then face a financial penalty. On the same token Apple COULD start buying Intel, but then face the wrat
Re: (Score:3)
The difference will be buried in the details. For example from experience in the restaurant, there is no financial exclusivity deal. What there is is a breach of contract deal. You're more than welcome to start stocking Pepsi. But Coke will not let you put it in their fridge (those fridges are leased by the way), and will very likely terminate the contract with you causing quite a bit of grief. This is very different from "here's money, don't buy anything from Pepsi"
The other big difference is that exclusiv
Re: (Score:3)
Actually most German 'pubs' have franchise like contracts regarding drinks.
E.g. bars that serve Fritz Cola will onnly serve that, and no other Cola.
And as Frizt also sells many fruit juices, the contracts usually forbid you to have any product on menu from a different brand, when you could get it from Fritz. E.g. Orange Soda (Orangensaftschorle).
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. But Frizt being the underdog is unable to abuse a dominant market position. It's a strange dichotomy where what is illegal for one may not be illegal for another.
Re: (Score:2)
Exclusive contracts would not be illegal for anyone.
The article is about 'bribing' Apple, by spending extra money money to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Exclusive contracts would not be illegal for anyone.
Except they become illegal as soon as it is done as an abuse of market position. Lookup "anti-trust laws". A lot of non-illegal things can suddenly be illegal. Even deciding to sell a product at a loss can be illegal without ever actually involving a third party.
Re: (Score:2)
In 007, Die another Day, every car used in the film had to be a Ford or a Ford subsidiary because Ford paid them.
Ford isn't a dominant player in the market, also the contract was for ONE movie only.
If Ford would have owned 80% of the car market and signed a contract that said "all 007 movies from now to Kingdom Come would only feature Ford cars" - that would have been ruled illegal.
Or when Coke or Pepsi make an agreement with a restaurant chain to be their only provider.
Coke and a restaurant chain of 10 locations could have this agreement. Coke and McDonald's couldn't.
We're talking about two dominant players agreeing to stop competition.
Re: (Score:3)
But coke and McDonald's have exactly that agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Coke doesn't dominate the soft drink industry. McDonald's, while a large part of the soft drink market, isn't dominant either. Burger King is of comparable importance and has a contract with Pepsi. There's a large market out there, including some vending machines in our building. So, nobody cares. Another company could enter the soft drink field and compete in various ways.
However, if Coke was the dominant supplier, we'd want other companies to have the ability to supplant its position. Perm
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, /. article, nor if either of them dominates the market.
Joe can't because McDonalds and Coke went into a mutual agreement.
That has nothing to do with the
No one prevents Joe from selling in the next best super market, via Amazzon, or what ever.
So, it's all about whether Joe gets a fair shake in the market or not. ... it is only one company/partner/customer in the market.
And how does an excclusive deal betwenn C and M prevent that? M is not the market
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is a manufacturer choosing a single supplier for a part considered monopoly behavior? Qualcomm was free to sell to others, and others were free to buy from Qualcomm's competitors.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with your paradox is that you haven't considered the other end of the argument. If you can't r
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. Sorry - I was kind of assuming the dominant position without stating it.
So let me elucidate a little further with that made (hopefully) clearer. Qualcomm was in a market-dominant position at the time and cut an exclusivity deal with Apple that pretty much guaranteed that they would remain in a fairly dominant position as a result. It's not a _complete_ monopoly unless they managed to get a similar deal with other manufacturers but certainly significant enough to make it far less likely that anyon
Re: (Score:1)
Because that's the law. Offering a volume discount for a specific large number of chips is entirely legal. Offering a volume discount for 100% of the business from one large company to the effect that it shuts out all other suppliers is anti-competitive and illegal.
Some grocery stores do indeed accept money to guarantee certain shelf space - that's entirely legal. Paying to guarantee that a competitor does not get *any* shelf space anywhere, is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it illegal to "pay to play"?
No. It's illegal to abuse a position of a monopoly. Depending on your current market situation, who you're doing business with and who it affects, all of the things you listed can be considered illegal for the same reason.
Nice bribe (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nice bribe (Score:4)
Except that they are not allowed to continue doing it. If they do, there will be another bigger fine, and so on util they go bankrupt or stop.
Re: (Score:1)
People who claim that EU just is trying to get free money tends to ignore that fines like this often comes with a warning first.
The goal isn't to fine them. The goal is to make them stop.
The fine is just a method to accomplish the goal.
If it doesn't help you either increase the fine or throw them in jail.
Many times the fines aren't large enough and the company just sees it as the cost of doing business.
The correct response isn't to fine them again with the same amount.
In a situation like that you need to sh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...or all the money changed pockets. Whichever comes first.
I personally would rather see them broke than in jail for a couple years then back out, just as rich as they went in.
Re: (Score:2)
What do banks do? Give loans.
Who gets a loan? Apple.
Who bails out the banks after they go bankrupt from lending? The Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Who prints the money in the first place? The Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, The FTC is looking at Qualcomm and South Korea and China have also fined them for breaking rules on anti-competitive behaviour.
If you want to trade in the EU, read the rules and stick to them or get fined. Don't like the rules? Don't have to sell there.
The actual issue is that qualcom is cementing a market dominant position. If a tiny start up had agreed an exclusivity deal with Apple, that would not have broken the rules.
Paying fines is good.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:The EU sure loves to fine American companies (Score:4, Insightful)
They quite happily fine EU companies too. Though one suspects that EU companies are more aware what practices are illegal in the EU and are thus less likely to break them and consequently less likely to be fined. However Qualcomm are a multi billion dollar company operating globally, it is not unreasonable to expect them to be aware that what they where doing was illegal in what is the largest single market in the world, and I am not going to cry when they get fined for breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
They quite happily fine EU companies too. Though one suspects that EU companies are more aware what practices are illegal in the EU and are thus less likely to break them and consequently less likely to be fined. However Qualcomm are a multi billion dollar company operating globally, it is not unreasonable to expect them to be aware that what they where doing was illegal in what is the largest single market in the world, and I am not going to cry when they get fined for breaking the law.
You would be wrong. All the biggest fines have been awarded to EU companies. It just dont seem to hit US media when EU companies gets huge fines from the EU.
Patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Qualcomm will just file this under their expenses along with costs of labour, real estate, vendors and all other business expenses.
Their market position they gained from this behaviour is worth far more than 1.2 billion in the long run.
They should be forced to relinquish their patents in order to allow real competition to grow.
Re: (Score:2)
Reportedly, Qualcomm used to file patents to cover only a part of the features of their hardware. The rest was kept as trade secret. As a result, the competitors still needed to pay the patent licenses for Qualcomm IP, but the missing info prevented them to produce competitive components easily.
This is why choosing WCDMA for 3G destroyed Qualcomm's European competitors. In the end, It worked so well that Qualcomm folded its own 3GPP2 organisation, because the supposedly rival 3GPP standards were much more l
Re: Patents? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No reliable source on the topic, sorry. But it is quite possible to patent the principles of CDMA - using orthogonal codes to provide multiple users access to the same frequency band - without patenting the technical means to do it with a good power efficiency. If those methods are hard to detect through reverse engineering, it may be a good idea to keep them secret.
I believe that it is not a coincidence that when WCDMA was introduced, one big complaint from early adopters was the very short standby time c
Comment removed (Score:3)
Wait I thought Apple was paying to much? (Score:2)
how does that work tho? (Score:1)
Phew! (Score:2)
My Dell XPS 13 nagged me last night to update the BIOS and I declined on the basis I wanted to go to bed and not wait around to see it finish.
(I'm not brave enough to kick off a BIOS update and then leave the laptop alone for 8 hours)
Appears I dodged a bullet there.
Re: (Score:1)
Translation (Score:1)
EU says, "You have money, we want it.".
Apple just as guilty? (Score:2)
Apple best negotiators everrr (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Paying customers not to use a competitor's products is illegal when you have a dominant market position.
Re:What is wrong with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but I'm really struggling to figure out how this is wrong.
What part of "paying key customer Apple to not use chips made by Qualcomm's rivals" you didn't get?
Hint: it's not about "discounts" and it's not about beating the competition with a better product; it's about abusing your market dominance to prevent rivals from even competing in the market.
Or is competition good only when it fits your narrative?
RT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same thing IF the party making the proposal is already dominating the market.
A small player can't offer this kind of deal simply because they can't produce the volume of goods required by the other contract party (e.g., Apple). A big player isn't allowed to offer this kind of deal because they would shun competition through size alone. If regulatory bodies allow this, it would guarantee monopolies remain monopolies forever.
Re: (Score:1)
If you want to do business in the EU, you have to abide by EU law. It's that simple.
Re:No authority (Score:4, Insightful)
The EU has no authority in the U.S.
It's normal business for a company to give a big discount to use their product. if the payout took place in the U.S. there is nothing the E.U. can do about it.
I would never pay their fine.
The EU absolutely has authority over what companies that operate within the EU do. There are many-many cases where the US has passed punitive measures against companies not based in the US too. This isn't something only the EU does.
Re: (Score:1)
In fact, the US even does it when the activity was not in US jurisdiction and did not affect operations in the US in any way. The EU does not.
Re: (Score:2)
But ... it was not a discount.
It was a bribe.
If you don't pay, they seize your property ... good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
If you assert that corruption is normal, I'm not in possession of facts to deny you. That doesn't keep it from being corruption. And doing reasonable things to stop it is entirely reasonable. (But they need to slap Apple's wrists, too.) It's my suspicion that this won't be sufficient to stop them, so they'll probably need to repeat it with an increased fine...say, 75% of the profits from now on until they stop the practice. Of course, they could avoid the fines by just not doing business in the EU, but
Re:Friggin commies (Score:4, Insightful)