1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,320
Speaker 1: One California federal judge is taking the possibility of another

2
00:00:03,360 --> 00:00:06,840
Speaker 1: government shutdown into account after hearing testimony in a trial

3
00:00:06,880 --> 00:00:10,680
Speaker 1: that pits the FTC against Qualcolm. Judge Lucy co says

4
00:00:10,800 --> 00:00:13,280
Speaker 1: she's unlikely to rule before the government runs out of

5
00:00:13,320 --> 00:00:15,840
Speaker 1: money again next month, but she told the FTC to

6
00:00:15,880 --> 00:00:19,040
Speaker 1: ask her again in writing by February thirteenth if it

7
00:00:19,079 --> 00:00:22,680
Speaker 1: appears another shutdown is likely. Joining me is Jennifer Ree

8
00:00:22,760 --> 00:00:26,880
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Intelligence Senior litigation analyst jen Why did the judge

9
00:00:26,920 --> 00:00:31,000
Speaker 1: even discuss the timing of her decision in such detail? Well,

10
00:00:31,040 --> 00:00:33,000
Speaker 1: you know, it is unusual June for a judge to

11
00:00:33,080 --> 00:00:35,960
Speaker 1: do that, and certainly they have no statutory deadlines on

12
00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:39,360
Speaker 1: issuing these opinions. But in the closing arguments, the FTC

13
00:00:39,479 --> 00:00:41,600
Speaker 1: actually asked, you know, can you just give us some

14
00:00:41,680 --> 00:00:43,800
Speaker 1: general guidance on your timing? And I think it's because

15
00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:46,199
Speaker 1: they are concerned that if they lose and want to appeal,

16
00:00:46,440 --> 00:00:48,240
Speaker 1: they only have a certain amount of time to appeal,

17
00:00:48,240 --> 00:00:50,640
Speaker 1: and if the government's closed, it will affect their timing

18
00:00:50,680 --> 00:00:52,960
Speaker 1: and their ability to appeal. And I think that's why

19
00:00:53,040 --> 00:00:56,200
Speaker 1: she also gave such a detailed response. So, what are

20
00:00:56,240 --> 00:01:00,280
Speaker 1: the FTCs primary allegations in the case, you know, what

21
00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:04,040
Speaker 1: they're primarily alleging here is that through interrelated practices, several

22
00:01:04,040 --> 00:01:08,200
Speaker 1: practices that over the years, Qualcom maintained its market dominance

23
00:01:08,280 --> 00:01:11,480
Speaker 1: in certain chips, mostly chips for three G and four

24
00:01:11,560 --> 00:01:14,600
Speaker 1: G uh C, d M A and lt either called

25
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:18,320
Speaker 1: by by abusing its market power in those chips to

26
00:01:18,480 --> 00:01:23,480
Speaker 1: force um really abusively high royalties on the techno the

27
00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:26,720
Speaker 1: patents it has for the technology needed for those chips

28
00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:28,280
Speaker 1: to work in the phone and for the phone to

29
00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:32,959
Speaker 1: work wirelessly. So essentially, Qualcom has patents that it's obligated

30
00:01:32,959 --> 00:01:35,399
Speaker 1: to license in what's called a fair, reasonable and non

31
00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:39,160
Speaker 1: discriminatory manner because those patents are necessary by any phone

32
00:01:39,160 --> 00:01:42,960
Speaker 1: maker for that phone to work wirelessly, and it also

33
00:01:43,000 --> 00:01:46,000
Speaker 1: has chips that almost every phone maker needs. And what

34
00:01:46,160 --> 00:01:49,880
Speaker 1: the FTC says Qualcom did was they threatened that if

35
00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:52,480
Speaker 1: the phone maker wouldn't pay these very high royalties that

36
00:01:52,560 --> 00:01:56,120
Speaker 1: were not fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, they wouldn't sell them

37
00:01:56,120 --> 00:01:58,320
Speaker 1: their chips. And the O e M couldn't accept that.

38
00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:01,680
Speaker 1: So was there act toual testimony from some of the

39
00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:05,720
Speaker 1: people that had been allegedly threatened in this way. Yeah. Well,

40
00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:08,239
Speaker 1: the interesting thing is there was a lot of testimony,

41
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:12,560
Speaker 1: you know, one after another O E. M's like Apple, uh,

42
00:02:12,600 --> 00:02:15,920
Speaker 1: and rivals like Intel took the stand and said, yes,

43
00:02:15,960 --> 00:02:18,280
Speaker 1: they did feel that they had no leverage. They had

44
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:21,800
Speaker 1: no ability to really negotiate reasonably with Qualcolm because they

45
00:02:21,800 --> 00:02:24,000
Speaker 1: couldn't take the risk that they would lose this chip

46
00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:27,160
Speaker 1: supply um. And there were even documents where you could

47
00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:30,680
Speaker 1: see that Qualcom referenced, if you don't accept our royalties

48
00:02:30,760 --> 00:02:32,600
Speaker 1: or lose, you will lose our chips. But on the

49
00:02:32,639 --> 00:02:35,200
Speaker 1: other hand, you had quite a few Qualcom witnesses that

50
00:02:35,240 --> 00:02:39,600
Speaker 1: testified that they never actually ever stopped supplying chips to

51
00:02:39,760 --> 00:02:42,640
Speaker 1: an o EM, even when there were licensing disputes ongoing.

52
00:02:42,760 --> 00:02:46,000
Speaker 1: So that was Qualcolm's defense. That was part of its defense. Yes,

53
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:50,440
Speaker 1: was there any indication which way the judge was leaning.

54
00:02:50,440 --> 00:02:54,880
Speaker 1: I mean, you could never tell, but sometimes the rulings. Yeah,

55
00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:57,200
Speaker 1: Now in this case, she was really quiet, you know,

56
00:02:57,480 --> 00:03:00,280
Speaker 1: very few questions, She was very focused. You to tell

57
00:03:00,360 --> 00:03:03,080
Speaker 1: that she was watching carefully. She was looking at the

58
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:05,960
Speaker 1: exhibits and the documents. So I think at least through

59
00:03:05,960 --> 00:03:07,839
Speaker 1: the course of the trial, it's really hard to see

60
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 1: where she's leaning going into trial. She seemed very much

61
00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:13,560
Speaker 1: to be siding with the FTC. There were some pre

62
00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:16,760
Speaker 1: trial rulings where she took the FTC side, both in

63
00:03:16,800 --> 00:03:19,040
Speaker 1: what kind of evidence she would allow into the trial

64
00:03:19,080 --> 00:03:21,440
Speaker 1: or wouldn't allow into the trial, as well as an

65
00:03:21,480 --> 00:03:25,040
Speaker 1: early judgment that she made regarding Qualcom and what it's

66
00:03:25,080 --> 00:03:28,440
Speaker 1: obligated to do with these standard essential patents. So, if

67
00:03:28,440 --> 00:03:31,079
Speaker 1: the FTC wins the case, what does it want the

68
00:03:31,160 --> 00:03:34,440
Speaker 1: judge to do? What's the remedy in this case? Um,

69
00:03:34,560 --> 00:03:37,240
Speaker 1: the FTC is not seeking any money, So unlike some

70
00:03:37,320 --> 00:03:39,600
Speaker 1: of the actions that have been taken against Qualcom in

71
00:03:39,680 --> 00:03:42,920
Speaker 1: Europe and in China, there won't be any big fines here.

72
00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:46,240
Speaker 1: All they're looking for is a judge's order that requires

73
00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:49,480
Speaker 1: Qualcom to do or to refrain from doing certain things.

74
00:03:49,760 --> 00:03:51,800
Speaker 1: And one of the biggest ones is what we just

75
00:03:51,880 --> 00:03:55,200
Speaker 1: talked about, that they cannot use this threat of withholding

76
00:03:55,200 --> 00:03:58,000
Speaker 1: our chips from an O E M in order to

77
00:03:58,600 --> 00:04:01,360
Speaker 1: extract the High Royalty that it's extracting that it needs

78
00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:05,840
Speaker 1: to separate out those negotiations. Would that hurt Qualcom's business model?

79
00:04:06,880 --> 00:04:08,880
Speaker 1: You know, it's really hard to say that there, there's

80
00:04:08,920 --> 00:04:11,920
Speaker 1: a bigger piece. I think that that, if implemented, would

81
00:04:11,960 --> 00:04:15,240
Speaker 1: hurt Qualcom's business model more. And that piece is what

82
00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:18,320
Speaker 1: we haven't talked about yet. Um that the that the

83
00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:22,560
Speaker 1: FTC has wants an order requiring Qualcom to license not

84
00:04:22,680 --> 00:04:24,359
Speaker 1: just the O E M s the makers of the

85
00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: phone like Samsung and Apple, but also chip rivals like

86
00:04:28,040 --> 00:04:31,680
Speaker 1: Media Tech and Intel. Up till now, Qualcom hasn't done that.

87
00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:34,440
Speaker 1: And what they claim is that's an inefficient way of

88
00:04:34,440 --> 00:04:37,360
Speaker 1: doing things. And it's unclear yet how that might affect

89
00:04:37,360 --> 00:04:39,479
Speaker 1: their royalty streams if they have to do that, but

90
00:04:39,560 --> 00:04:43,360
Speaker 1: it could affect their business model. Sometimes, even after a trial,

91
00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:46,680
Speaker 1: there is a settlement before the judge, especially before the

92
00:04:46,760 --> 00:04:49,920
Speaker 1: judges order comes in or before a verdict by a jury.

93
00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:53,200
Speaker 1: Is that likely here? I don't think it's likely, but

94
00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:55,880
Speaker 1: I think it could happen. We know that the parties

95
00:04:55,920 --> 00:04:59,400
Speaker 1: have been discussing settlement. They acknowledged as such before this

96
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:01,360
Speaker 1: trial start. Did at one point they even sought to

97
00:05:01,480 --> 00:05:04,520
Speaker 1: stay in order to talk settlement and the judge refused it.

98
00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:07,560
Speaker 1: The issue I think that could hurt settlement talks now

99
00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:10,839
Speaker 1: is that the FTC. I think believes they have momentum

100
00:05:10,880 --> 00:05:13,200
Speaker 1: here and believes they did really great job in trial

101
00:05:13,240 --> 00:05:15,440
Speaker 1: and have to have a possibility of winning. So they've

102
00:05:15,480 --> 00:05:18,600
Speaker 1: gained a little leverage in these negotiations. But it's it's uh,

103
00:05:18,640 --> 00:05:23,160
Speaker 1: it could happen. Now. We know that Makon del Rahim,

104
00:05:23,200 --> 00:05:25,440
Speaker 1: who is the head of the Anti trust division at

105
00:05:25,400 --> 00:05:28,000
Speaker 1: the d o J, has been vocal about the fact

106
00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 1: that he doesn't think this type of case should be

107
00:05:31,279 --> 00:05:35,680
Speaker 1: brought resolve with the antitrust laws. This is brought by

108
00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:39,360
Speaker 1: the FTC. So there's sort of a disconnect there. Explain

109
00:05:39,440 --> 00:05:41,760
Speaker 1: the positions a little bit. You know, it's an interesting

110
00:05:41,800 --> 00:05:43,280
Speaker 1: thing and I think there's a lot of debate in

111
00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:46,520
Speaker 1: the antitrust community about this because in a big picture

112
00:05:46,560 --> 00:05:52,719
Speaker 1: policy um level, the thought is that when you hamper um,

113
00:05:52,960 --> 00:05:55,320
Speaker 1: they when a company has I P and they've done

114
00:05:55,320 --> 00:05:56,760
Speaker 1: the R and D and put the money into the

115
00:05:56,880 --> 00:05:58,760
Speaker 1: R and D and they've obtained a patent, they have

116
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:01,279
Speaker 1: the right to to get the benefit of that patent.

117
00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:02,960
Speaker 1: They have the right to charge what they want to

118
00:06:03,080 --> 00:06:05,039
Speaker 1: in terms of royalties and do what they want to

119
00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:07,479
Speaker 1: with that patent, and that intern will fund the R

120
00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:10,160
Speaker 1: and D in innovation and so there's a fear that

121
00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:13,320
Speaker 1: if you use antitrust to sort of mess up this equilibrium,

122
00:06:13,560 --> 00:06:16,560
Speaker 1: that it could hamper innovation. And del Rahim generally believes

123
00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:20,440
Speaker 1: anti trust should support innovation and not hamper innovation, and

124
00:06:20,440 --> 00:06:23,839
Speaker 1: and that these patent rights perhaps ought to have some

125
00:06:23,920 --> 00:06:27,320
Speaker 1: precedence over antitrust, and that you could resolve these matters

126
00:06:27,360 --> 00:06:30,880
Speaker 1: as a matter of contract law. Jennifer Ree always makes

127
00:06:30,920 --> 00:06:35,240
Speaker 1: anti trust interesting. That's Bloomberg Intelligent senior litigation analyst Jennifer

128
00:06:35,279 --> 00:06:37,040
Speaker 1: Ree from more of gent analysis. You can go to

129
00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:39,120
Speaker 1: b I go on the Bloomberg terminal