1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you inside and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,120
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,160
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. This week, Pocom

6
00:00:20,400 --> 00:00:23,360
Speaker 1: was found two d seventy two million dollars by EU

7
00:00:23,440 --> 00:00:27,960
Speaker 1: antitrust regulators for predatory pricing that pales in comparison to

8
00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:30,800
Speaker 1: the one point one billion dollar find the EU imposed

9
00:00:30,920 --> 00:00:33,800
Speaker 1: last year on the chip maker. Of course, Qualcom is

10
00:00:33,840 --> 00:00:36,960
Speaker 1: appealing both rulings, just as it's appealing a decision by

11
00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:39,680
Speaker 1: a federal judge in San Francisco which would force the

12
00:00:39,720 --> 00:00:43,680
Speaker 1: chip maker to change its practices. In an unusual twist,

13
00:00:43,680 --> 00:00:47,040
Speaker 1: the Justice Department is now arguing against the Federal Trade Commission,

14
00:00:47,080 --> 00:00:49,479
Speaker 1: which brought the case, So joining me to help us

15
00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:52,080
Speaker 1: sort this all out. As Spencer Waller, professor of anti

16
00:00:52,120 --> 00:00:56,000
Speaker 1: trust law at the Loyola University School of Law, so,

17
00:00:56,120 --> 00:01:00,400
Speaker 1: Federal Judge Lucy co issued a sweeping, two three page

18
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:05,399
Speaker 1: opinion that Qualcom had strangled competition for years. What remedy

19
00:01:05,480 --> 00:01:08,600
Speaker 1: did she order? So this case relates to the way

20
00:01:08,640 --> 00:01:11,160
Speaker 1: they license and sell their chips for what we would

21
00:01:11,160 --> 00:01:14,440
Speaker 1: call three G and four G smartphones. And so the

22
00:01:14,520 --> 00:01:19,240
Speaker 1: judge found that Qualcom monopolized and attempted to monopolize various

23
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:21,360
Speaker 1: aspects of the chip market in terms of the way

24
00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:25,360
Speaker 1: it licenses technology, the way it refused to sell chips

25
00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:29,000
Speaker 1: or license to rival chip makers, and the way it

26
00:01:29,319 --> 00:01:33,600
Speaker 1: provided certain discounts to clients to sort of lockout competition.

27
00:01:34,040 --> 00:01:37,280
Speaker 1: What's controversial about her remedy is she found that this

28
00:01:37,440 --> 00:01:41,200
Speaker 1: was all illegal. She enjoyed the specific business behavior that

29
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:44,720
Speaker 1: was illegal, but because it related to the old technology

30
00:01:44,800 --> 00:01:49,040
Speaker 1: three G and four G, she extended her injunction to

31
00:01:49,560 --> 00:01:53,400
Speaker 1: the ongoing sales and licensing of the five G technology.

32
00:01:53,520 --> 00:01:58,320
Speaker 1: So Qualcom basically passed to the license technology to rival

33
00:01:58,400 --> 00:02:01,559
Speaker 1: chip makers. It has to live up to its promises

34
00:02:01,640 --> 00:02:06,200
Speaker 1: to license all comers on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms,

35
00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:10,120
Speaker 1: and it has to avoid certain exclusive dealing arrangements and

36
00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:15,080
Speaker 1: certain sweetheart deals. So the Trump administration interfered even before

37
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:19,160
Speaker 1: the judge's decision, asking her to consider limiting any penalties.

38
00:02:19,560 --> 00:02:23,320
Speaker 1: Now it's interfering again at the appellate stage. How unusual

39
00:02:23,440 --> 00:02:28,040
Speaker 1: is that it's not unprecedented, but it's highly unusual the

40
00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:31,200
Speaker 1: two agencies. This case was brought by the FTC that

41
00:02:31,280 --> 00:02:34,960
Speaker 1: as an independent agency with five commissioners appointed by the

42
00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:39,920
Speaker 1: President confirmed by the Senate, and the two agencies operate independently,

43
00:02:40,040 --> 00:02:42,520
Speaker 1: although they generally go out of their way to not

44
00:02:42,800 --> 00:02:46,840
Speaker 1: interfere with each other and generally not duplicate each other's efforts.

45
00:02:47,280 --> 00:02:50,600
Speaker 1: This is a rare, not completely unprecedented. This is the

46
00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:54,000
Speaker 1: most aggressive I've ever seen the d o J jumping

47
00:02:54,000 --> 00:02:57,520
Speaker 1: into an FTC case. Judge co refused to put her

48
00:02:57,600 --> 00:03:01,680
Speaker 1: ruling on hold while Qualcom appeals, so the chip makers

49
00:03:01,720 --> 00:03:04,560
Speaker 1: asking the Ninth Circuit to do that, and the Justice

50
00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:09,600
Speaker 1: Department is backing Qualcom, saying the case threatens national security.

51
00:03:09,680 --> 00:03:17,080
Speaker 1: How So, the Justice Department's position is that essentially Qualcom

52
00:03:17,360 --> 00:03:20,919
Speaker 1: is the most important maker of five G modem chips

53
00:03:20,919 --> 00:03:24,720
Speaker 1: and the related technology, and it's vital for national security

54
00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:28,520
Speaker 1: and energy policy, and the remedies should be limited so

55
00:03:28,600 --> 00:03:31,800
Speaker 1: as not to interfere with their innovation and the rollout

56
00:03:31,800 --> 00:03:35,960
Speaker 1: of five G secure technology. Is that an unusual position

57
00:03:36,040 --> 00:03:39,360
Speaker 1: to take? I know that last year the Trump administration

58
00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:44,200
Speaker 1: blocked a hostile takeover bid from rival chip maker Broadcom.

59
00:03:44,760 --> 00:03:47,440
Speaker 1: Is it unusual to be so protective of a company

60
00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:51,200
Speaker 1: like this. Well, there's two separate things. There's the antitrust review,

61
00:03:51,240 --> 00:03:54,280
Speaker 1: which is generally limited to what is the likely harm

62
00:03:54,320 --> 00:03:57,880
Speaker 1: to competition and for certain deals, there's a separate review

63
00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:02,280
Speaker 1: for national security and qual acquisition was blocked on national

64
00:04:02,320 --> 00:04:05,080
Speaker 1: security grounds. This is the first time I can think

65
00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:07,960
Speaker 1: of that the Justice Department has ever gone into court

66
00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:13,280
Speaker 1: to argue that an otherwise antitrust violation should be remedied

67
00:04:13,280 --> 00:04:16,720
Speaker 1: in limited ways because it also threatens national security. The

68
00:04:16,760 --> 00:04:20,599
Speaker 1: Antitrust Division has really always taken the decision that all

69
00:04:20,640 --> 00:04:23,320
Speaker 1: they do is antitrust. All they do is analyze effects

70
00:04:23,320 --> 00:04:27,120
Speaker 1: on competition, and this is a very different and important

71
00:04:27,160 --> 00:04:30,400
Speaker 1: and troubling step for them to jump in in this

72
00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:34,919
Speaker 1: particular way. It's also very troubling because right now the

73
00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:37,800
Speaker 1: technical issue is just whether the District cart judges order

74
00:04:37,839 --> 00:04:41,400
Speaker 1: should be stayed, But in doing so, the Justice Departments

75
00:04:41,520 --> 00:04:45,000
Speaker 1: partially arguing that the STC is not likely to prevail

76
00:04:45,040 --> 00:04:47,599
Speaker 1: on appeal. So they're really signaling to the court that

77
00:04:47,760 --> 00:04:50,000
Speaker 1: one agency believes that the case is no good and

78
00:04:50,040 --> 00:04:53,200
Speaker 1: the other agency just one the case below. How is

79
00:04:53,200 --> 00:04:56,360
Speaker 1: her order as far as you're concerned, do you think

80
00:04:56,360 --> 00:05:00,080
Speaker 1: it will be subject to reversal by the Nine Circuit? Oh,

81
00:05:00,080 --> 00:05:03,200
Speaker 1: it's a long and complicated opinion. Much of it turns

82
00:05:03,240 --> 00:05:06,600
Speaker 1: on on the facts, and you know the credibility of witnesses.

83
00:05:07,160 --> 00:05:08,880
Speaker 1: All I can say is it's hard for me to

84
00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:10,919
Speaker 1: predict what the Ninth Circuit says. I think if this

85
00:05:11,000 --> 00:05:13,520
Speaker 1: case gets in front of the Supreme Court, the FTC

86
00:05:13,680 --> 00:05:16,840
Speaker 1: will have some uphill slating. Supreme Court has been very

87
00:05:16,960 --> 00:05:20,280
Speaker 1: narrow in its views of Section two of the Sherman

88
00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:23,520
Speaker 1: Act about what is and is not monopolization. You mentioned

89
00:05:23,520 --> 00:05:26,320
Speaker 1: what's going on in the EU. Their law is more expansive,

90
00:05:26,440 --> 00:05:29,200
Speaker 1: it covers more things, They have better theories, and they

91
00:05:29,200 --> 00:05:32,880
Speaker 1: have different remedies, including fines, and so the EU stuff

92
00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:36,240
Speaker 1: is on pretty firm ground, and at least the U

93
00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:38,640
Speaker 1: S stuff is subject to debate. Although I find the

94
00:05:38,839 --> 00:05:42,920
Speaker 1: FTC case credible and based on existing law, including when

95
00:05:42,960 --> 00:05:45,680
Speaker 1: you pledge to a trade association or a standard setting

96
00:05:45,720 --> 00:05:48,760
Speaker 1: body that you're gonna license things in a certain way.

97
00:05:48,760 --> 00:05:50,920
Speaker 1: If they adopt your technology, you're to stick with that.

98
00:05:51,640 --> 00:05:54,560
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about the FTCs argument in

99
00:05:54,600 --> 00:06:00,599
Speaker 1: their argument opposing Qualcoms intervention. Here it says that the

100
00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:04,680
Speaker 1: argument that an anti trust remedy that reduces Qualcoms profits

101
00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:08,680
Speaker 1: constitutes an impermissible threat to national security would imply that

102
00:06:08,800 --> 00:06:12,960
Speaker 1: Qualcom is immune from antitrust scrutiny. Do you agree with that?

103
00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:15,599
Speaker 1: Does it go that far? Well, I mean, you know,

104
00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:18,200
Speaker 1: the agencies are starting to throw some sharp alpos at

105
00:06:18,200 --> 00:06:21,400
Speaker 1: each other. I agree with the stec's position on this.

106
00:06:21,400 --> 00:06:24,160
Speaker 1: This has come up many other times. For example, when

107
00:06:24,160 --> 00:06:26,560
Speaker 1: a T and T was being broken up, the antitrust

108
00:06:26,600 --> 00:06:29,799
Speaker 1: concerns prevailed over certain parts of the government who thought

109
00:06:29,839 --> 00:06:32,480
Speaker 1: that this would be bad for national security. This is

110
00:06:32,480 --> 00:06:34,400
Speaker 1: an antitrust case. There are other ways to pursue the

111
00:06:34,480 --> 00:06:38,200
Speaker 1: national security concerns. Well. Anti trust is becoming very much

112
00:06:38,200 --> 00:06:42,240
Speaker 1: a part of the conversation today, and certainly Qualcom is

113
00:06:42,320 --> 00:06:45,719
Speaker 1: keeping a lot of anti trust lawyers in business. Thanks

114
00:06:45,720 --> 00:06:48,560
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. That Spencer while or he's

115
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:52,560
Speaker 1: a professor of antitrust law at the Loyola University School

116
00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:57,680
Speaker 1: of Law. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

117
00:06:58,040 --> 00:07:02,120
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

118
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:06,080
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot Com. Slash podcast. I'm June Rosso.

119
00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:13,320
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg m