1
00:00:00,240 --> 00:00:03,680
Speaker 1: Qualcom makes most of its profits from licensing technology that

2
00:00:03,800 --> 00:00:06,640
Speaker 1: is essential to modern cell phones, and it also sells

3
00:00:06,720 --> 00:00:09,320
Speaker 1: chips that are used in those same cell phones. But

4
00:00:09,360 --> 00:00:11,799
Speaker 1: in a new lawsuit, the Federal Trade Commission argused that

5
00:00:11,920 --> 00:00:15,080
Speaker 1: Qualcom violated the anti trust laws by offering rebates on

6
00:00:15,200 --> 00:00:20,200
Speaker 1: licensing fees conditioned on Apple using its chips exclusively in iPhones.

7
00:00:20,560 --> 00:00:24,040
Speaker 1: The FTC says this arrangement created de facto exclusive deals

8
00:00:24,040 --> 00:00:28,120
Speaker 1: that prevented competitors from selling processors to Apple. Here did

9
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:31,440
Speaker 1: it talk to us about the FTCs lawsuit? Is Bloomberg

10
00:00:31,520 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 1: Intelligence senior litigation analyst Jennifer ree Jen always very happy

11
00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:38,360
Speaker 1: to have you here to explain something complicated like this

12
00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:42,280
Speaker 1: to us, And it is kind of a complicated arrangement

13
00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:44,000
Speaker 1: that leads to this laws whit Why don't we start

14
00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:47,239
Speaker 1: with you explain to us how it is that we

15
00:00:47,320 --> 00:00:50,320
Speaker 1: ended up in a situation where the FTC is claiming

16
00:00:50,320 --> 00:00:54,080
Speaker 1: that Qualcom has an anti competitive arrangement going on. Well,

17
00:00:54,120 --> 00:00:56,840
Speaker 1: thank you for having me again. Um Now, the FTC

18
00:00:57,040 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 1: has been investigating Qualcom for a few years now, and

19
00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:02,880
Speaker 1: sometimes as investigations get open because they are hearing complaints

20
00:01:02,880 --> 00:01:05,120
Speaker 1: from the industry, or they read something or here's something

21
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,280
Speaker 1: that they think something not proper is going on, and

22
00:01:08,280 --> 00:01:11,400
Speaker 1: and this is what's come out of that investigation, and

23
00:01:11,240 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: and and to really make it simpler. It is complicated,

24
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:17,720
Speaker 1: but let's just make it simpler. Qualcom has patents that

25
00:01:17,920 --> 00:01:19,880
Speaker 1: go into standards that are needed from most of the

26
00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:23,720
Speaker 1: most advanced mobile phones. A standard setting organization decided on

27
00:01:23,760 --> 00:01:27,959
Speaker 1: that standard, knew that the standard incorporated qualcom intellectual property rights,

28
00:01:28,200 --> 00:01:31,399
Speaker 1: and when that was decided, Qualcom agreed, I will be

29
00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:33,520
Speaker 1: part of this standard, and I promise that I will

30
00:01:33,560 --> 00:01:37,880
Speaker 1: fairly reasonably and in a nondiscriminatory manner license anyone who

31
00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:40,640
Speaker 1: needs this access to this i P for the standard

32
00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:43,200
Speaker 1: for the mobile phone that's sold. And essentially there's a

33
00:01:43,400 --> 00:01:46,280
Speaker 1: litany of conduct that the FTC is laid out that

34
00:01:46,319 --> 00:01:49,120
Speaker 1: they say is essentially they're not abiding by this promise,

35
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:52,880
Speaker 1: they're not fairly licensing the i P that companies have

36
00:01:53,000 --> 00:01:55,880
Speaker 1: to have to incorporate the standard into into the cell phone,

37
00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:58,960
Speaker 1: and the Apple exclusivity is part of it. So the

38
00:01:59,000 --> 00:02:01,800
Speaker 1: timing of this law student, we have been discussing Justice

39
00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:07,560
Speaker 1: Department settlements and lawsuits and different things happening um as

40
00:02:07,600 --> 00:02:12,560
Speaker 1: the Obama administration winds down. Is the timing suspect. While

41
00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:15,080
Speaker 1: the timing is quite suspect because you know where this

42
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:17,240
Speaker 1: is in the Federal Trade Commission, where you have commissioners

43
00:02:17,240 --> 00:02:20,079
Speaker 1: who vote to bring in action. Right now, we're missing two.

44
00:02:20,160 --> 00:02:22,880
Speaker 1: We have three out of a total five, and one

45
00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:25,280
Speaker 1: is a Republican into our Democrats, and one of those

46
00:02:25,280 --> 00:02:28,079
Speaker 1: Democrats is leaving as a February twenty, which would have

47
00:02:28,160 --> 00:02:30,880
Speaker 1: left two. You need a majority vote in order to

48
00:02:30,880 --> 00:02:34,040
Speaker 1: bring a lawsuit like this, and the Republican dissented. She

49
00:02:34,440 --> 00:02:38,000
Speaker 1: strongly disagreed with bringing this suit. So had they waited

50
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:40,200
Speaker 1: to fit until February twenty, they would have been a

51
00:02:40,200 --> 00:02:42,040
Speaker 1: one to one vote and there would have been no

52
00:02:42,120 --> 00:02:44,880
Speaker 1: lawsuit brought. So I think it looks a little bit

53
00:02:44,919 --> 00:02:46,760
Speaker 1: like this was sort of a rush to get the

54
00:02:46,800 --> 00:02:49,120
Speaker 1: suit in there while there was still a majority Democrat.

55
00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:53,640
Speaker 1: Well okay, so but now they have brought the suit.

56
00:02:54,840 --> 00:02:57,560
Speaker 1: We have a situation where you know, Qualcom does a

57
00:02:57,600 --> 00:02:59,639
Speaker 1: couple of different things, and it's making a business deal

58
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:01,840
Speaker 1: with that and saying, look, we'll license our stuff for you.

59
00:03:01,840 --> 00:03:03,080
Speaker 1: In fact, we'll give you a good deal on that

60
00:03:03,120 --> 00:03:05,160
Speaker 1: if you want to buy the other things from us,

61
00:03:05,160 --> 00:03:08,960
Speaker 1: which on one level seems like perfectly reasonable business making.

62
00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:11,200
Speaker 1: Why does the federal government think this violates the anti

63
00:03:11,240 --> 00:03:14,080
Speaker 1: trust laws? You know, it's funny because this is a

64
00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:16,919
Speaker 1: controversial area of the anti trust laws for sure, because

65
00:03:16,919 --> 00:03:20,959
Speaker 1: exclusive agreements are often proper and not illegal. And you know,

66
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:23,000
Speaker 1: you're looking at the situation where they're claiming, well, they're

67
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:25,680
Speaker 1: giving these great, big, huge rebates to Apple and theoretically

68
00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:28,560
Speaker 1: this should translate into a lower price for consumers, and

69
00:03:28,600 --> 00:03:30,120
Speaker 1: that's a good thing, So why would you want to

70
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:33,560
Speaker 1: blunt that? But what they're essentially saying here is that

71
00:03:33,800 --> 00:03:37,240
Speaker 1: it's unfair because it's blocking access to this very important

72
00:03:37,640 --> 00:03:40,960
Speaker 1: and large maker of mobile phones to competitors of Qualcom,

73
00:03:40,960 --> 00:03:44,520
Speaker 1: and it's just continuing Qualcom's dominance in in basically the

74
00:03:44,560 --> 00:03:48,240
Speaker 1: modem chip sets needed, which allows them then to charge

75
00:03:48,320 --> 00:03:51,480
Speaker 1: higher costs to everybody else that needs this chip set.

76
00:03:51,920 --> 00:03:56,080
Speaker 1: So now there's been a private lawsuit against Qualcom as well.

77
00:03:57,000 --> 00:04:00,760
Speaker 1: Is it the same as the FTCs are different? Why? Well,

78
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:04,040
Speaker 1: it's based on similar conduct allegations, but it actually has

79
00:04:04,640 --> 00:04:08,240
Speaker 1: a very significant difference. The private lawsuit, as it needs

80
00:04:08,280 --> 00:04:10,320
Speaker 1: to be, is based on the Sherman Act, which is

81
00:04:10,360 --> 00:04:13,840
Speaker 1: the primary antitrust law. But the FTC S lawsuit is

82
00:04:13,880 --> 00:04:16,400
Speaker 1: based on Section five of the FTC Act, which only

83
00:04:16,400 --> 00:04:19,400
Speaker 1: the FTC has access to. Private plaintiffs can't bring a

84
00:04:19,440 --> 00:04:22,159
Speaker 1: suit under section five, and that's a big difference because

85
00:04:22,160 --> 00:04:25,120
Speaker 1: the Sherman Act allegations are more difficult to prove. They

86
00:04:25,200 --> 00:04:29,000
Speaker 1: require a higher standard, whereas under Section five there's a

87
00:04:29,040 --> 00:04:31,880
Speaker 1: little bit, it's a little broader, there's more discretion. It

88
00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:35,680
Speaker 1: just prohibits unfair acts um And it's another reason why

89
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:40,200
Speaker 1: Commissioner Olhausen dissented because the Section five itself is controversial.

90
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:42,240
Speaker 1: And when they've brought this under section five and not

91
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:44,600
Speaker 1: the Sherman Act, it suggests, well, they didn't really have

92
00:04:44,720 --> 00:04:48,960
Speaker 1: evidence supporting true monopolization or true price wealth. That's the

93
00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:51,880
Speaker 1: price fixing isn't part of it, but true monopolization conduct.

94
00:04:52,800 --> 00:04:55,680
Speaker 1: Jenery have about thirty seconds left. But is this is

95
00:04:55,720 --> 00:04:58,680
Speaker 1: all American litigation now we're talking about are there any

96
00:04:58,839 --> 00:05:01,880
Speaker 1: investigations or charge jews outside the US that Qualcom is

97
00:05:01,880 --> 00:05:04,280
Speaker 1: going to be facing about this yet? Qualcom has been

98
00:05:04,320 --> 00:05:07,360
Speaker 1: fined by China and Korea. They're fighting that they've an

99
00:05:07,480 --> 00:05:10,280
Speaker 1: order in Japan was issued a season desist and they're

100
00:05:10,279 --> 00:05:13,120
Speaker 1: still being investigated by Taiwan in Europe, so there there

101
00:05:13,120 --> 00:05:15,960
Speaker 1: could be more coming. Thank you very much to Jennifer

102
00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:19,200
Speaker 1: Ree Bloomberg Intelligence senior litigation analysts, for being with us

103
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:21,760
Speaker 1: here today on Bloomberg Law. And that's it for this

104
00:05:21,960 --> 00:05:24,799
Speaker 1: edition of Bloomberg Law. We will be back tomorrow thanks

105
00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:28,040
Speaker 1: to our technical director Marxin Escalchi and our producer David Sutraman.

106
00:05:28,360 --> 00:05:30,520
Speaker 1: You can find more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot

107
00:05:30,520 --> 00:05:33,560
Speaker 1: com and Bloomberg b NA dot com, plus an invaluable

108
00:05:33,560 --> 00:05:35,920
Speaker 1: website for the legal community at Big Law Business dot

109
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:36,240
Speaker 1: com