Tesla, Intel, and Others Urge America's FTC to Oppose Qualcomm Ruling (bbc.co.uk) 44
Tesla, Ford, Honda, Daimler, and Intel have asked America's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to fight a recent court ruling in favour of Qualcomm, reports the BBC:
Qualcomm has a practice of requiring customers to sign patent licence agreements before selling them chips. Such practices have drawn accusations the firm is stifling competition... According to Glyn Moody, a journalist specialising in tech policy, the car industry is bothered by Qualcomm's patent practices because "cars are essentially becoming computers on wheels", as the industry continues to develop more advanced connected cars. In the future, it is hoped that connected cars will use 5G processors to connect them to the internet. Carmakers have seen this battle over 4G and are worried it will cement the firm's position as the battle for dominance over 5G technology advances.
"This is a completely different world than the one [carmakers] are used to, so they're suddenly faced with dealing with computer standards and computer patents, which is a big problem for them as they don't have any. So if they have to start licensing this stuff, it's going to get expensive for them," Mr. Moody told the BBC...
Prof Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School is director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology. He has been following Qualcomm's various court cases for several years. "Qualcomm made a commitment that it would licence its chips on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, because they wanted their chips to be included in the industry standards, and then they created a structure to avoid doing this," he said.
"I think they are in fact violating the antitrust laws."
"This is a completely different world than the one [carmakers] are used to, so they're suddenly faced with dealing with computer standards and computer patents, which is a big problem for them as they don't have any. So if they have to start licensing this stuff, it's going to get expensive for them," Mr. Moody told the BBC...
Prof Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School is director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science and Technology. He has been following Qualcomm's various court cases for several years. "Qualcomm made a commitment that it would licence its chips on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, because they wanted their chips to be included in the industry standards, and then they created a structure to avoid doing this," he said.
"I think they are in fact violating the antitrust laws."
There's a competitor in 5G (Score:4, Insightful)
But you don't want it. Deal with your self-imposed monopoly.
When you create an industrial beast, you need a strong state to master it. China must be laughing now...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So what are you promoting here? Fascist dictatorships? Totalitarian oligarchies?
Re: (Score:2)
Car industry has decades of patent licensing. Emission control, safety, etc. They KNOW how to do the so called freedom to operate analysis and they have DONE the freedom to operate analysis.
Their issue with Qualcom patents is not really the perennial Qualcomminess in it. It is the elephant in the corner of the room - Huawei. Huawei holds 50%+ of the 5G IPR including key IPR for automotive 5G use and IOT 5G use. They can see that Qualcom is "literally selling them a pup". Thei
they whine too much (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that no matter how much R&D work the car companies are willing to put in, nothing they do can avoid the problem that if they want to talk to cellular networks (especially 5G) they have to pay through the nose to Qualcomm for patent licenses.
They are urging the government to force Qualcomm to license their patents under better terms (on the basis that the patents in question are essential for these standards)
Re: (Score:2)
5G isn't really that great. We need a consortium of actual customers to create an open standard for "6G" and "WiFi 7".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: they whine too much (Score:1)
These companies are asserting that cars are "computers on wheels". Yet, they seem to have no interest in the development of the computer parts. Seem like the first car company to significantly develop this part on their own will end up ruling the car industry.
Sounds like you're talking about Apple!
Need to ask... (Score:2)
If this group of companies are banding together it's either for greater good or immense evil. Based on their track records, I'm betting on the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at what they're fighting, though... Apple already had to go up against them. Qualcomm makes connectivity chips.
But somehow they decided that Apple needed to pay more for the exact same chips if they were going into higher-end iPhones like the 256Gig X, vs say, a 64Gig iPhone 8.
Re: (Score:1)
And?
Somehow your real estate agent has decided that you need to pay more for the exact same sales assistance if you're selling a $600K home versus, say, a $300K home.
You're acting as if this is a new and magical concept.
Re: Need to ask... (Score:2)
And when you put your patented technologies into a standard like 5G, you are required to license them under fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory terms. FRAND terms require them not to do that. The trick theyâ(TM)re playing is that these companies that are buying chips are not licensing the patents âoein order to implement the standardâ, theyâ(TM)re licensing them because Qualcomm says they have to to buy chips. That means that they donâ(TM)t qualify for FRAND terms, and allow
Re: (Score:2)
They require them not to charge a royalty based upon the price of the end device? What's your source for that? Because mine say otherwise [essentialpatentblog.com].
Re: (Score:2)
But somehow they decided that Apple needed to pay more for the exact same chips if they were going into higher-end iPhones like the 256Gig X, vs say, a 64Gig iPhone 8.
I'd like to see some supporting documentation on this claim.
It sounds a little fantastical, and quite honestly, it sounds like you've over-simplified the issue.
I bet you that Qualcomm offers a discount on chips used in lower-end models, rather than charge a premium for the higher-end phone, much like the way Microsoft gives manufacturers free licenses for Win 10 on low-end laptops/devices (based on screen size, ram size, etc.)
Re: Need to ask... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Found it:
https://www.eetimes.com/apple-... [eetimes.com]
Apple decided it was in their best interest to license Qualcomm chips at a percentage of device cost, rather than a fixed amount per piece. Apple Pay's Qualcomm the same 5% license fee on every device that uses their technology.
The key words are "Apple" and "chose", Apple chose to pay more on expensive devices to save money on lower-end devices.
Then stop connecting them. (Score:3)
the car industry is bothered by Qualcomm's patent practices because "cars are essentially becoming computers on wheels", as the industry continues to develop more advanced connected cars
Either pay more to connect your cars to the internet or stop connecting them to the internet. This is the proper solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Either pay more to connect your cars to the internet or stop connecting them to the internet. This is the proper solution.
I'm not sure what makes it proper compared to any other solution. And there are other solutions.
When the world was being dragged down into the same quagmire of complex ISO standards they charge money just to view, with only proprietary implementations that were brittle and frequently didn't interoperate, the solution was to do the reverse: create new standard that were free to download, and required a working open source implementation before it could accepted. That solution was called TCP/IP of course,
Re: (Score:2)
the car industry is bothered by Qualcomm's patent practices because "cars are essentially becoming computers on wheels", as the industry continues to develop more advanced connected cars
Either pay more to connect your cars to the internet or stop connecting them to the internet. This is the proper solution.
These anti-trust allegations are just the big boys quarreling among themselves to see who can gather more money. For us small guys, the worry is having our cars connected to the internet as a sitting duck for the eventual hacker (see one of the stories [electrek.co] on this).
I realize that the convenience of software updates is arguably a good thing, but there are so many really bad things that could happen with connected cars. Having bad guys or even "good" guys (e.g., the police) disable your car, or even steal it wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... except 5G is absolute shit because it's a power hog.
Re: (Score:2)
I vote for the stop connecting them option.
Auto makers are already adding too much standard gadgets that I don't really want/need in my next car. Most of the electronic gadgetry (e.g. lane departure adaptive cruise, backup camera, etc.) should be sold as optional add-ons so the base cost of the vehicle is more reasonable and if I need/want those gadgets I would still have the option to add them (but wouldn't need to pay for something I would seldom or never use).
Elon Musk opposes this? (Score:2)
Musk wanting anything is like seeing the hot chick offering you a blow job going into the mens room and standing at a urinal.
Simple solution (Score:2)
Stop trying to build a car around a computer and you won't need the chips. Keep things simple so the car drives by the driver, not some lousy software produced by an overpaid hack.
But that won't happen, will it? Nope, we'll keep jamming as much crap into cars as can be managed then complain when things don't work, don't work as expected, when one part fails everything thing fails, or make simple tasks like changing a radio station too dangerous to do while driving.
Re: (Score:3)
Chips are used not just for autopilot or the entertainment system. A lot of the chips are used for things like ABS, engine timing, brake pressure monitoring. Having these things optimized using chips lets the components to be used sparingly which means they can be made thinner, lighter and cheaper thus reducing the cost of the steel used in the car. This has expanded to such an extent that a 20000 dollar car with a 16000 manufacturing cost has probably 6K of Chips, 8K of steel and 2K of labor costs.
Make Qualcomm sign agreements (Score:2)
All the car companies can get together and let it be known that no cars will be sold to employees of Qualcomm unless Qualcomm cross licenses all their IP to them.
Lets see if Qualcomm complains of anti-trust
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can't - for the same reason a baker needs to sell custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages.
Re: (Score:2)
I know they cant but the judge is allowing Qualcomm to do essentially the same so whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander or if you want 2 ganders.
Re: Make Qualcomm sign agreements (Score:2)
Not true. The reason that bakers canâ(TM)t deny service because someone is gay is because thatâ(TM)s a protected group in the constitution. You canâ(TM)t discriminate against someone based on their sex (which you are doing when you discriminate based on being gay - youâ(TM)d be fine with serving them if they were the other gender).
The reason they couldnâ(TM)t do this is because it would break all kinds of anti-competition laws.
The problem is (Score:3)
Companies that don't want to invest in the R&D required to make better tech than Qualcomm figure their best out is the courts.
Seriously, there are competitors to Qualcomm. But they aren't the best. These companies want the best, without paying the up front R&D costs, so they head for the court system.
grammatical note:
better tech than Qualcomm figure their best out
their or they're?
Re: The problem is (Score:3)
They want the licenses at the rate that Qualcomm agreed to charge as part of the agreement for their technology to be part of the 5G standard.
Re: (Score:1)
There's no such thing as an agreed-upon price. There's only FRAND, which doesn't specify any value, just a set of rules.
Qualcomm charges 3.5% of the device price (capped at $500) for their 5G patent coverage which includes over 100K patents. Assuming they keep the cap at $500 for cars too (and I don't see how they can argue that a car requires a different cap), here's how much the phone/car maker has to pay in royalties:
Device cost ---- License cost
$300 ------------ $10.50
$500 ------------ $20.00
$1000
Re: (Score:1)
Posted by mistake while editing - but you get the idea. Max license cost is $20. The chip itself might cost an extra $200, but that's no different from an Intel CPU. If the manufacturer goes with an Huawei or other non-Qualcomm SoC, it just needs to pay the $20 to Qualcomm since they're still using those patents.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it's 3.5% of $500 = $17.50.
I got confused because they also sell a bundle with other non-essential patents; all together, they charge 5% of device price, capped at $500, which is $20.
Boo-Hoo (Score:2)
So if they have to start licensing this stuff, it's going to get expensive for them," Mr. Moody told the BBC...
So carmakers don't want to pay high prices for components they need for their cars?
Is THAT the issue here? They want the government to force Qualcomm to sell them chips for less money?
Re: Boo-Hoo (Score:2)
Yes, because Qualcomm agreed to sell the patents at that rate when they agreed to put their technology into the 5G standard.
Re: (Score:1)
No, there's no such thing. They agreed to license them as FRAND - that has no attached price. Read my post above.
Re: (Score:2)
While at the same time fighting right-to-repair laws so they keep getting their pound of flesh.
Translation (Score:2)
Chip-makers want perpetual ownership of their intellectual product. Manufacturers want interchangeable technology that anyone can manufacture.
Patents are total monopolies (Score:2)
Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.
Just abolish patents, problem solved.
Hypocrites (Score:1)
"This is a completely different world than the one [carmakers] are used to, so they're suddenly not faced with dealing with car standards and car parts patents...
FTFY