Qualcomm Is Accused of Violating Antitrust Rules in Europe(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Qualcomm Is Accused of Violating Antitrust Rules in Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/technology/qualcomm-is-accused-of-violating-antitrust-rules-in-europe.html?ref=technology&_r=0
16 comments
It certainly seems most American media sites are reporting it in that way - despite the fact that China and South Korea have either penalized them already or are investigating them now, too.
Maybe it's a conspiracy to "go after American companies" from all of these regions. Or maybe Qualcomm did indeed do something bad.
Maybe it's a conspiracy to "go after American companies" from all of these regions. Or maybe Qualcomm did indeed do something bad.
Indeed.
We all profit from having a free market, for that to be existing consumers need to have a choice; the market has to be either free of monopolies, or we have to make sure the monopoly on one market (say, web search) doesn’t quickly turn into a monopoly for other markets (say, mobile OS, web maps, etc), too.
We all profit from having a free market, for that to be existing consumers need to have a choice; the market has to be either free of monopolies, or we have to make sure the monopoly on one market (say, web search) doesn’t quickly turn into a monopoly for other markets (say, mobile OS, web maps, etc), too.
"We have to make sure there are no monopolies" (or that monopolies don't "spread") is a dangerous approach, since it leads to the politician's fallacy. It may not even be possible to keep a relatively free market while making sure of that.
The question to ask is: are these EU investigations effective at reducing the number and spread of monopolies? And if they aren't, what should we do?
Because looking at the Microsoft case, the effectiveness seems dubious.
The question to ask is: are these EU investigations effective at reducing the number and spread of monopolies? And if they aren't, what should we do?
Because looking at the Microsoft case, the effectiveness seems dubious.
In the Microsoft case, the effectiveness was still noticeable.
The concept of the Microsoft case: Make sure that Microsoft can not get a monopoly in the web.
How it was done: Install no browser by default, let people pick. People chose what they had heard of, often Firefox or Chrome.
Result: It led to an almost instantaneous drop in IE market share on new windows installs.
And it most definitely helped end IE’s monopoly over the market.
With Google, it will be far more problematic, and might even end up with Google getting broken up into several companies, or even banned from some markets, or even forced to operate like a governmental monopoly, and integrate competing products equally as they integrate their own.
The concept of the Microsoft case: Make sure that Microsoft can not get a monopoly in the web.
How it was done: Install no browser by default, let people pick. People chose what they had heard of, often Firefox or Chrome.
Result: It led to an almost instantaneous drop in IE market share on new windows installs.
And it most definitely helped end IE’s monopoly over the market.
With Google, it will be far more problematic, and might even end up with Google getting broken up into several companies, or even banned from some markets, or even forced to operate like a governmental monopoly, and integrate competing products equally as they integrate their own.
The data show no significant long-term change after the BrowserChoice screen was introduced (in March 2010): http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-eu-monthly-200807...
IE was dropping rapidly before, and it kept dropping more-or-less at the same pace. Firefox actually started dropping right around that time.
People want to believe, but where's the evidence?
IE was dropping rapidly before, and it kept dropping more-or-less at the same pace. Firefox actually started dropping right around that time.
People want to believe, but where's the evidence?
Well, I think it just as strongly implies that American technology companies are increasingly engaging in illegal behavior. (Though this implication is no better then the one you've gotten from it.)
Qualcomm is a very nasty company. One of the worst of its kind. Their pointless attacks on free codecs[1] "just because" demonstrates it as well.
[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1520/
[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1520/
What does that link represent? Isn't it just a declaration that they have patents which may conflict with Opus? Isn't that just what a patent holder is expected to do?
It represents their nastiness. They were contacted and it was explained to them how their claim is invalid and those patents don't apply to Opus. But they refused to remove this claim, "just because" (may be they like creating FUD). You can ask Opus developers for more details on this. Qualcomm acted out of bad will here.
Most non-troll patent holders only use their patents defensively.
I don't disagree with this, but this is exactly what Intel has been doing, too, especially with the Atom platform in mobile. And Intel has a track record of abusing anti-trust laws, so why hasn't anyone given a second look to Intel's practices again? Maybe Intel is just better at hiding it in "deals" with OEMs.
> Europe’s antitrust officials in Brussels said that Qualcomm, one of the world’s largest makers of chips, had abused its dominant market position in the region by offering financial incentives to smartphone and tablet manufacturers that agreed to buy equipment solely from Qualcomm.
> Europe’s antitrust officials in Brussels said that Qualcomm, one of the world’s largest makers of chips, had abused its dominant market position in the region by offering financial incentives to smartphone and tablet manufacturers that agreed to buy equipment solely from Qualcomm.
Intel, as in http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel.html?
I think the antitrust regulators mostly act on complaints and given the time frames they work in, it seems to be rather complex, so they don't take on too many of them. So I guess it's just that nobody complained too loudly about Intel in recent years.
EU regulators also have to deal with domestic cases that don't typically end up on HN. Check http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
I think the antitrust regulators mostly act on complaints and given the time frames they work in, it seems to be rather complex, so they don't take on too many of them. So I guess it's just that nobody complained too loudly about Intel in recent years.
EU regulators also have to deal with domestic cases that don't typically end up on HN. Check http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
Could be because Intel has an actual fab in Ireland, while Qualcomm, like AMD, are fab-less chip companies.
And i'm not sure if Intel has offered such deals, or simply been selling their Atom chips below cost.
There may also be some issue with Qualcomm sitting on some radio patents. Samsung had to use Qualcomm chips in some Galaxy variants to function on Verizon networks, for instance.
And i'm not sure if Intel has offered such deals, or simply been selling their Atom chips below cost.
There may also be some issue with Qualcomm sitting on some radio patents. Samsung had to use Qualcomm chips in some Galaxy variants to function on Verizon networks, for instance.
Intel woke up and slightly adjusted its strategy after Qualcomm Chinese antitrust case blew up.
Gives the impression the EU is deliberately going after US companies when in fact the majority that are investigated for anti-competitive acts are European.