Qualcomm continues to have a rough start to the first half of the year after being sued by Apple and the United States Federal Trade Commission in separate lawsuits over anti-competitive practices. On Friday, Samsung and Intel both filed briefs backing the FTC in its case against Qualcomm, claiming they have been “harmed” by the misconduct.
Although Samsung develops its own chips that compete with Qualcomm’s, it uses its competitor’s chips in its smartphones — such as the Snapdragon 835 processor in the Galaxy S8. “Despite having requested a license from Qualcomm, Samsung cannot sell licensed Exynos chipsets to non-Samsung entities because Qualcomm has refused to license Samsung to make and sell licensed chipsets,” Samsung said in its brief, calling Qualcomm’s actions “exclusionary.”
Intel, on the other hand, claims in its filing that Qualcomm’s practices have “inflicted and continues to inflict precisely the harms that the antitrust laws seek to protect against,” according to The Wall Street Journal.
“Qualcomm has maintained an interlocking web of abusive patent and commercial practices that subverts competition on the merits. These practices have illegally coerced mobile phone manufacturers into purchasing the chipsets they need from Qualcomm and Qualcomm alone,” Intel wrote.
While Qualcomm has not commented on Samsung and Intel’s briefings, it did warn investors in its most recent earnings report that growing legal challenges may affect its financial outlook. Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss the FTC suit is slated for June, and will be heard in a federal court in the Northern District of California.
Full Content: Wall Street Journal
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh