1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:06,360
Speaker 1: M Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso.

2
00:00:06,760 --> 00:00:09,440
Speaker 1: Every day we bring you insight and analysis into the

3
00:00:09,480 --> 00:00:12,000
Speaker 1: most important legal news of the day. You can find

4
00:00:12,039 --> 00:00:15,320
Speaker 1: more episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast,

5
00:00:15,520 --> 00:00:19,360
Speaker 1: SoundCloud and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It may

6
00:00:19,400 --> 00:00:22,439
Speaker 1: have looked like Qualcom was in for smooth sailing after

7
00:00:22,520 --> 00:00:25,639
Speaker 1: it's settled an antitrust lawsuit brought by Apple last month,

8
00:00:25,720 --> 00:00:28,680
Speaker 1: But not so fast. Now our federal judge has ruled

9
00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:32,479
Speaker 1: that Qualcom violated anti trust law by abusing its dominant

10
00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:35,199
Speaker 1: position in the market for cell phone chips to exact

11
00:00:35,400 --> 00:00:39,479
Speaker 1: excessive licensing fees, giving the FTC the win. Joining me

12
00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:42,159
Speaker 1: as Harry first professor of anti trust law at n

13
00:00:42,360 --> 00:00:46,920
Speaker 1: y U Law School. So Professor Judge Lucy co ruled

14
00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:50,479
Speaker 1: against Qualcom on virtually every point and said that it's

15
00:00:50,600 --> 00:00:55,600
Speaker 1: licensing practices have strangled competition in certain modem chip markets.

16
00:00:56,160 --> 00:01:00,480
Speaker 1: Is that exactly what Apple had accused it of? Well, um,

17
00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:07,960
Speaker 1: Apple accused it of exacting excessive royalty rates UM and

18
00:01:08,360 --> 00:01:13,080
Speaker 1: forbidding it from using through its exclusivity agreements, from using

19
00:01:13,160 --> 00:01:17,600
Speaker 1: other chips, particularly chips by Intel. The two cases are

20
00:01:17,720 --> 00:01:21,280
Speaker 1: similar in the sense that the Federal Trade Commission had

21
00:01:21,319 --> 00:01:27,920
Speaker 1: included Apple's exclusivity agreements in its case, but um the

22
00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:32,640
Speaker 1: two parties are really seeking different things. So Apple was

23
00:01:32,680 --> 00:01:37,000
Speaker 1: seeking lower royalty rates in the end, the Federal Trade

24
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:42,600
Speaker 1: Commission is really attacking um uh Qualcomm's business model. UM,

25
00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:46,479
Speaker 1: but it too was very worried about the high prices

26
00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 1: that um qualcomm has been able to exact on its

27
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:55,800
Speaker 1: patent licensing. As far as the judge's opinion was, with

28
00:01:55,840 --> 00:02:01,200
Speaker 1: her language very strong, I think very is a is

29
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:07,280
Speaker 1: a weak adjective. Uh. Very yes, very strong, although in

30
00:02:07,320 --> 00:02:12,639
Speaker 1: some ways not surprising. She had been ruling in preliminary rulings,

31
00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:18,240
Speaker 1: particularly at a fairly recent stage in the proceedings that

32
00:02:18,320 --> 00:02:21,799
Speaker 1: it looked pretty much like the Federal Trade Commission UM

33
00:02:22,040 --> 00:02:26,320
Speaker 1: case was pretty strong, So I actually wasn't surprised at

34
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:29,640
Speaker 1: how she came out. But when you read through her opinion,

35
00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:35,920
Speaker 1: it's really a litany of um uh qual comes licensing practices,

36
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:40,000
Speaker 1: what their intent was, and what the effect has been

37
00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:46,799
Speaker 1: on innovation and pricing UH in in cell phone technology

38
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:51,880
Speaker 1: and handsets more generally. So UM It's it is quite strong.

39
00:02:52,480 --> 00:02:56,959
Speaker 1: UH it's based on UM, you know, trial hearing witnesses

40
00:02:57,880 --> 00:03:01,320
Speaker 1: doing the things that trial core judges are supposed to do,

41
00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:05,880
Speaker 1: which is to judge the evidence, assess the credibility of

42
00:03:05,919 --> 00:03:09,280
Speaker 1: the um of the various witnesses on both thoughts, and

43
00:03:09,360 --> 00:03:12,440
Speaker 1: come to a decision. So it's it's a pretty strong case.

44
00:03:13,160 --> 00:03:16,120
Speaker 1: What about the remedies. What kind of remedies did she

45
00:03:16,440 --> 00:03:22,920
Speaker 1: order and will they disrupt Qualcom's business model? Well, UM,

46
00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:27,040
Speaker 1: the remedies that she ordered were targeted pretty much too

47
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:31,919
Speaker 1: UM the allegations of the Federal Trade Commission's complaint. So

48
00:03:32,000 --> 00:03:36,640
Speaker 1: a primary UM part of the complaint was UM. Well,

49
00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:43,200
Speaker 1: actually two things. The policy of UM no chips, no license, UM,

50
00:03:43,320 --> 00:03:46,480
Speaker 1: you had to if you wanted the chips, you had

51
00:03:46,520 --> 00:03:51,840
Speaker 1: to license the technology, which the Commission said kept prices up.

52
00:03:51,840 --> 00:03:55,080
Speaker 1: So she said you can't do that. UM. They have to.

53
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:59,720
Speaker 1: They're licensing for the technology can be subject to just

54
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:05,480
Speaker 1: mute UM and arbitration UM. And they also now in

55
00:04:05,520 --> 00:04:10,360
Speaker 1: addition to licensing handset makers, they have to license competing

56
00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:14,560
Speaker 1: chip makers UM. And that's been a big source of

57
00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:20,280
Speaker 1: UM major contention and a way that Qualcom has been

58
00:04:20,320 --> 00:04:24,880
Speaker 1: able to obtain higher royalty rates by not licensing the

59
00:04:24,960 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: chip makers, which means that any handset maker, even if

60
00:04:27,880 --> 00:04:30,680
Speaker 1: they buy chips from someone else, still has to take

61
00:04:30,680 --> 00:04:34,960
Speaker 1: a license from qualcom UH and still has to pay royalties,

62
00:04:35,240 --> 00:04:40,279
Speaker 1: and the royalties are high. Will that will her remedies

63
00:04:40,520 --> 00:04:45,960
Speaker 1: possibly lower costs for Apple and other smartphone makers? They well,

64
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:50,240
Speaker 1: there are a lot of smartphone makers, Um, they the

65
00:04:50,440 --> 00:04:54,039
Speaker 1: UM Commission and her opinion talked about six of them.

66
00:04:54,640 --> 00:04:58,880
Speaker 1: So yes, it should lower costs for them, and it

67
00:04:59,240 --> 00:05:02,240
Speaker 1: it ought to in the end lower prices for consumers.

68
00:05:03,480 --> 00:05:07,080
Speaker 1: A lot of people buy UH smartphones and they've been

69
00:05:07,120 --> 00:05:11,120
Speaker 1: paying UM these rates that are higher than the rates

70
00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:16,680
Speaker 1: really that qualcom UH in a sense had promised UH

71
00:05:16,760 --> 00:05:21,320
Speaker 1: to charge. And when those rates go down, that's a

72
00:05:21,400 --> 00:05:26,480
Speaker 1: major part of the costs of of a handset. So yes,

73
00:05:26,520 --> 00:05:29,839
Speaker 1: it should be should lead to lower prices for the

74
00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:33,599
Speaker 1: makers and for consumers in the end. Now Qualcolm said

75
00:05:33,680 --> 00:05:38,160
Speaker 1: it quotes strongly disagrees with the judges conclusions or interpretation

76
00:05:38,200 --> 00:05:40,240
Speaker 1: of the facts and her application of the law, and

77
00:05:40,279 --> 00:05:44,920
Speaker 1: it will appeal. What are its chances on appeal, Well,

78
00:05:45,040 --> 00:05:49,919
Speaker 1: it's always hard to say exactly. Um. That the it

79
00:05:50,040 --> 00:05:54,040
Speaker 1: becomes difficult to appeal cases that have been tried where

80
00:05:54,080 --> 00:05:58,480
Speaker 1: a judge has made uh strong factual findings. Um, i'd

81
00:05:58,480 --> 00:06:01,320
Speaker 1: like in the case, I would uh say, in that way,

82
00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:03,880
Speaker 1: it's similar to the case that was brought in the

83
00:06:04,000 --> 00:06:08,280
Speaker 1: late nineties against Microsoft, where the judge made extensive factual

84
00:06:08,320 --> 00:06:12,239
Speaker 1: findings which very much supported the decision of the Court

85
00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:15,720
Speaker 1: of Appeals to affirm what the judge did. So they

86
00:06:15,720 --> 00:06:18,279
Speaker 1: have a bit of a hard slog to go against

87
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:23,680
Speaker 1: those findings, the two thirty page opinions, and uh, it's

88
00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:27,520
Speaker 1: it's very hard to overturn factual findings, you know, unless

89
00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:30,880
Speaker 1: they're clearly arbitrary, So so they'll have a problem making

90
00:06:30,920 --> 00:06:35,080
Speaker 1: those change. So. Qualcom currently has the most advanced five

91
00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:38,640
Speaker 1: gen modems in the market, and the Trump administration has

92
00:06:38,680 --> 00:06:44,240
Speaker 1: said it's vital to us competition with China in that technology.

93
00:06:44,400 --> 00:06:46,640
Speaker 1: It went so far as to interfere or try to

94
00:06:46,720 --> 00:06:50,080
Speaker 1: interfere in these proceedings by asking the judge for hearing

95
00:06:50,240 --> 00:06:54,039
Speaker 1: on any remedies. Is there any kind of interference that

96
00:06:54,120 --> 00:07:00,320
Speaker 1: the administration could do at this point? Well, um, I

97
00:07:00,320 --> 00:07:04,159
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. The Trump administration has lots of different

98
00:07:04,200 --> 00:07:08,120
Speaker 1: policies that get expressed in different ways, So uh, in

99
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:11,720
Speaker 1: any trust cases. It's true the Justice Department did file

100
00:07:11,800 --> 00:07:16,720
Speaker 1: a rather extraordinary petition to get involved at the remedy hearing,

101
00:07:17,160 --> 00:07:19,640
Speaker 1: But in terms of how that works out in an

102
00:07:20,000 --> 00:07:24,400
Speaker 1: an appeal in this case, UM, it's hard for me

103
00:07:24,480 --> 00:07:28,400
Speaker 1: to see it going another way any way other than um,

104
00:07:28,680 --> 00:07:32,560
Speaker 1: was there some mistake in law? Did the judge improperly

105
00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:36,120
Speaker 1: grant the remedy? Whether the Justice Department will file a

106
00:07:36,160 --> 00:07:40,800
Speaker 1: brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on qualcom side,

107
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:43,240
Speaker 1: We'll just have to see. I'm a little be a

108
00:07:43,280 --> 00:07:48,480
Speaker 1: little careful about talking some sort of overall Trump administration

109
00:07:48,560 --> 00:07:55,080
Speaker 1: policy towards qualcom um, because any trust policies tend to

110
00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:58,640
Speaker 1: be a little more targeted and focused and not so

111
00:07:58,720 --> 00:08:03,720
Speaker 1: much focused on UM competition with China or UM. You

112
00:08:03,760 --> 00:08:06,240
Speaker 1: know how all of this will affect that. All right, Well,

113
00:08:06,240 --> 00:08:08,720
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. Professor that's Professor

114
00:08:08,760 --> 00:08:13,120
Speaker 1: Harry First of n y U Law School. Thanks for

115
00:08:13,200 --> 00:08:16,440
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and

116
00:08:16,520 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 1: listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on

117
00:08:19,840 --> 00:08:24,560
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is

118
00:08:24,600 --> 00:08:25,200
Speaker 1: Bloomberg