back to article FTC told to cough up informants' memos in Qualcomm antitrust row

America's trade watchdog has been ordered to provide copies of the letters that led to its antitrust probe into California chip designer Qualcomm. In a San Jose district court ruling on Thursday, Judge Lucy Koh told the FTC it must give the Snapdragon giant copies of the "dual submission" documents in question – some of them …

  1. Trollslayer Silver badge


    Qualcomm are having to move into other sectors now because they can't strangle competitors by penalising customer with differential patent licensing fees as the patents are expiring.

    The killed a number of competitors that way except for Mediatek who are showing them how to get designs out there.

    1. whoseyourdaddy

      Re: Patents

      "strangle competitors by penalising customer with differential patent licensing fees as the patents are expiring"

      Umm.. What?

      Now that Apple is refusing to pay licensing fees to Qualcomm, iPhone prices have changed how, exactly? You're saying $20 in royalties on a shiny $800 phone from Cupertino is excessive?

      Apparently Mediatek's modem technology, like Icera's, comes up short.

      Explain how this is Qualcomm's fault.

  2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Where is the smoking gun?

    Oh wait, there it is... The tipoff to the FTC about QC that came from a phone number at Apple...

    Not saying it is true but I wonder if that is what QC are hoping.

  3. Hans 1 Silver badge

    I guess that will teach people/companies to file a claim with the FTC ... Koh has the intellect of an oyster ... unless some bank transfer could explain it ? I dunno, fishy, to say the least ...

    grammar nazi icon because it looks like a judge

  4. Warm Braw Silver badge

    What's interesting about this...

    ... is that none of it apparently has anything to do with whether there is an anti-trust case to answer. Who or what might have caused the FTC to start investigating doesn't seem to have any relevance to what they might subsequently have found and any prosecution would presumably depend only on evidence available to the court.

    1. nijam

      Re: What's interesting about this...

      ... so it's absolutely vital that Qualcomm must never ever find out what, specifically, the documents allege they have done. They must be found guilty!

      Or have I misunderstood what commentards are saying here?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019