First, let's get to know Qualcomm. In fact, we use Qualcomm's products every day and pay for them every day!
It is the most hated company in the communication industry, and almost all communication companies gnash their teeth at it. As a result, lawsuits of all sizes have broken out in Qualcomm. Either he is saying goodbye to others, or others are suing Qualcomm!
Qualcomm's Family History
The founder of Qualcomm is Dr. Owen Jacob.
▼ This is the old man, still alive and in good health.
Maybe you are unfamiliar with his name, but in fact, his position in the industry is no less than that of founder Jobs.
Jacobs' life is full of legends.
1933 was born in New Bedford, Massachusetts, USA. When he was in high school, his tutor said that science and engineering had no future. As a result, he was admitted to Cornell University School of Hotel Management, but was ridiculed by his roommates that the course was too simple and he turned to study electrical engineering. . . He seriously suspected that his instructor was Qualcomm's current enemy, so he crossed back to trap him, but failed. 1In July, 985, he and his colleagues from six Linkabit companies co-founded Qualcomm. (Qualcomm).
▼ "Seven Swords" shapes Qualcomm (Jacobs wears a black suit in the middle and looks like a leader at first glance)
Qualcomm's name comes from "high quality communication", which means "high quality communication". At that time, they had no products or business plans, but rented an office above a pizza shop.
After the founding of Qualcomm, he firmly aimed at CDMA. Jacobs and others discovered the development potential of CDMA in the field of mobile communication and decided to engage in the development of this technology and bring it into business.
After several years of field experiments, road test and industry demonstration, it is proved that CDMA is not only useful, but also can be used in various fields. Jacobs and his team seized every opportunity to promote CDMA, saying that this technology can provide better sound quality and lower operating costs.
1993, CDMA was finally recognized as an industry standard.
1995, the first commercial CDMA network system was established in Hong Kong.
1996, Bell Atlantic launched the first CDMA network in the United States.
Finally, under the impetus of Qualcomm, CDMA wireless communication technology has become a communication technology standard that can compete with GSM, and has been widely adopted in many countries and regions around the world.
Since then, Qualcomm has changed from a small boat to an industry giant, laying an irreplaceable position in the field of communication.
Why does everyone "hate" Qualcomm?
After all, it is all about money.
Qualcomm's main income comes from two parts: patent licensing and sales of mobile phone baseband chips (core chips responsible for wireless communication functions).
If mobile phone manufacturers use Qualcomm chips, they must pay the chip and patent fees.
If the chip of the base station built by the equipment manufacturer uses Qualcomm patent, it will have to pay the patent fee.
For operators, on the one hand, they need to purchase custom machine from mobile phone manufacturers; On the other hand, it is also necessary to purchase the equipment produced by the equipment manufacturer, and it is necessary to pay two patent licensing fees indirectly.
To put it bluntly, do you think Qualcomm's "Three Families Take All" can not be annoying?
If the 2G era is dominated by GSM and nothing happens in Qualcomm, then the 3G era, WCDMA, TD-SCDMA and CDMA2000 are closely related to CDMA initiated by Qualcomm.
Qualcomm made his fortune by CDMA, holding many core patents. Do you think it can't have a say? Can you not be strong? Can you afford it?
In fact, the technology you developed is patented, so it is natural and understandable to charge some patent fees, and everyone will not have any opinions. However, Qualcomm's collection method is really a bit "rogue" ...
The general way to collect patent fees is that if you use my patent, the part involved in the patent is used as the base for calculating the proportion. On the other hand, Qualcomm was accused on the whole.
For example, if you develop a mobile phone and use a chip from a certain manufacturer, generally speaking, you only need to pay the cost of the chip (at the agreed price).
However, if you use Qualcomm's chips, I'm sorry, no matter how much your mobile phone is worth, you have to pay 5% of the price of your mobile phone in Qualcomm.
If your mobile phone costs $65,438+000, give Qualcomm $5.
If the value of your mobile phone is 1000 USD, you have to pay 50 USD.
Even if a plane is built, it will be worth $654.38+0 billion. As long as you use its chip, you have to give it 50 million dollars. ...
Mobile phones have more and more functions, and accessories (cameras, screens) are getting better and better and more expensive. The price of the whole machine is rising, and your chip remains the same. You can still withdraw money in proportion.
How's it going? Is it tough enough?
This is why the patent license fee is called "Qualcomm tax" in Qualcomm.
Now the competition in the industry is so fierce that the profits of manufacturers are already meager. You overcharge 5% of the overlord clause, which is worse than the tax bureau (the tax bureau also has a tax refund policy). Anyone can. ...
The point is, even if you hate it, there is nothing you can do, because its patents are too many and too important. There's no way around it. ...
Let's look at the lawsuits caused by Qualcomm in recent years. ...
In July 2005, Broadcom filed an antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm, and finally reached a settlement. Gaotong paid $8,954.38+0 million to Broadcom.
In June 2007, South Korea conducted an anti-monopoly investigation on Qualcomm, and in June 2000, Qualcomm was fined 236 million US dollars.
In June 2007, 5438+ 10, the European Commission conducted an anti-monopoly investigation on Qualcomm based on the reports of six companies, including Nokia, and finally announced to stop the investigation in 2009 through settlement.
20 10 based on the complaint of Icera, Europe and the United States launched an anti-monopoly investigation against Qualcomm, and Icera complained that Qualcomm abused its market position. At present, this survey is still in the investigation stage.
On June 20 15, the National Development and Reform Commission of China imposed an anti-monopoly fine of RMB 6.088 billion on Qualcomm.
20/kloc-in April, 2006, Blackberry protested that Qualcomm charged too much for the specific patent fees paid by the company according to the license agreement. Subsequently, the two companies began negotiations to try to resolve this dispute. On April 2, 20 17, 12, that is, recently, the arbitration result came out, and Blackberry received compensation of 8150,000 US dollars from Qualcomm.
20 16, 16 In February, the Korean regulatory authorities announced that they would impose a fine of10.03 trillion won (about 880 million US dollars) on Qualcomm for violating the Anti-Monopoly Law, and asked the company to change its existing business practices.
20/kloc-in June, 2007, Apple filed a patent lawsuit against Qualcomm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, suing Qualcomm for "monopolizing the wireless chip market" and claiming nearly $65,438 billion.
This is just the tip of the iceberg ... Basically, the legal department in Qualcomm has never been idle. ...
A normal company, so many lawsuits, are all hundreds of millions, all in dollars. It was crazy a long time ago. ...
Qualcomm didn't. It has a professional team of lawyers who specialize in these things. In other words, Americans have a really strong sense of patent. You should have seen it in American TV series. It is common to go to court for patents. )
In the above-mentioned lawsuits, except that our country fined Qualcomm 6 billion yuan for anti-monopoly the year before last, the most striking thing is the deadlock between Qualcomm and another old "rogue" in the industry-Apple.
Apple boss Cook said, "Qualcomm has done a very good job in standard patents, but this is only a small part of the iPhone. Qualcomm's technology has nothing to do with monitors, touch ID or countless other innovations, which are all Apple's inventions. So we think this is wrong, and we have taken a principled position on this. "
To put it bluntly, Apple believes that Qualcomm's "Qualcomm tax" has affected Apple's innovation, because a large part of the benefits of innovation have been deprived by Qualcomm.
One is the largest chip manufacturer and the other is the largest mobile phone manufacturer. Two old hooligans are pinching each other. Of course, we will sit back and watch tigers fight. This is the reason for the recent lawsuit. ..
But then again, things were invented by others, and technology was studied by others. Without the early innovation of technology companies like Qualcomm, there would be no highly developed communication technology today. Only blame Qualcomm's early decision for being unwise, SHEN WOO. ...
Therefore, technological innovation and foresight are so important.