Really? Does anyone besides Intel manufacture high performance CPUs? That die space could have easily be saved to make the chip 30% cheaper, or add another extra 2 CPU cores, both would be better than a weak GPU that will sit idle for the sole purpose of boosting Intel's GPU market numbers.
That is true, but then you have to pay a price premium, so the lack of the unneeded GPU doesn't really benefit the purchase value. Who in this world buys an i7 to use with the integrated graphics? I certainly haven't seen a case, integrated graphics makes sense in value to low midrange, everything over that is just intel wasting silicon to boost its GPU marketshare stats. And it is not like the GPU is some miniscule chunk of the die, so it would be the same with or without it.
The same way you are also free to use satphones instead of qualcomm's 3g/4g, and it will also come at a price premium. Nobody is forcing the industry to use qualcomm's IP right? No more than nobody is forcing me to buy Intel chips, but in reality I seek best value for my money as does the communication industry, that's why it is obligated to pay qualcomm royalties for its IP bundles and that's why I am obligated to buy Intel's products which are bundled with a GPU I don't need just as those firms don't need the extra patents qualcomm bundles.
The situation is pretty much identical, a company abuses its marketing position to cram extra stuff down its consumers' throats they don't really need but have to pay for, it happens, even if some people apparently don't have the capacity to realize it.
You bring up a lot of good points, especially with the Intel argument and the last bit about leveraging marketing position (market share). However, until i had a dedicated GPU, i did make use of my i5-4K processor's integrated GPU for gaming, so that's one case.
Historically, Intel as a corporation (not non-profit) has margins of 60-65% on their chips, contrasted to AMD's 30-35% - rightfully so, corporations' main goals are to make money; benefit to the consumer comes afterwards.
As nice as Intel would be to make a specialized 4 core i-7 without an iGPU, I believe they chose not to not only for your reasons described above, but also because of logistics. To develop, manufacture, distribute, and market this new "i7" with the same current socket; the extra costs could very well be implemented into the price of this new "i7", coupled with the fact the market may have a decreased demand for just a CPU without iGPU, the cost to consumer while maintaining that 65% margin may be the same as an i7 with a iGPU. The extra costs of the new i7 would be shifted to consumers, as well as increasing the cost of the i7's /w iGPU's, and increasing the consumer price. The costs will shift to somewhere, and most likely to consumer as intel has historically liked their 65% margins. I would. If the choice were to have two i7 types associated with increases in price of all their processor ranges, or i7 with integrated and cheaper prices, I would probably choose the integrated option.
You make it sound like they use the same stencils to make everything with integrated GPU. i3, i5, i7, even their different variations have different layout, and reusing those somehow saves on development cost.
They could just as easily simply not have iGPU on i7 and that would actually save them a lot of money, allow them to sell the chips cheaper while still hitting their desired margins.
To be honest, iGPU in high end chips ONLY makes sense in server chips, were you only need the CPU power and barely enough GPU to manage it though a UI. But workstations, gaming - those MANDATE you get a good dedicated GPU, making the iGPU a waste of die space. And yet server chips, which could use a mediocre iGPU don't come with any. Probably because there are plenty multisocket systems, on which the "extra iGPUs" would be redundant, but then again, so is the iGPU in i7, and unlike the "desktop enthusiast" the server chips have tremendously higher margins, so the redundancy might actually be "more justified".
And getting back to choice and what would consumers prefer, I am pretty sure at least 99% of the people who buy i7 would prefer to get 2 extra cores at the same price and power envelope than the iGPU.
But then again, if they don't sell a useless GPU with each and every i7, intel will lose GPU market share, even if tiny, since they don't sell nearly as much i7 as they do cheaper chips.
I don't really see any practical side to why i7 would need iGPU in the first place, there is no need to spend extra money on developing two i7 varieties, the iGPU-less i7 is all that is really needed.
But I guess intel's had a hard time boosting performance marginally the last few years, so the way they "prefer" to make up for it is to push useless features to their costumers rather than a few extra cores. They prefer to waste the silicon than put it to good use. I am sure AMD's struggling (understatement) to compete has a lot to do with that kind of behavior.
I'm not saying they use stencils (simplified) - I'm simply stating that creating an i7 without iGPU would mean at the very least another manufacturing line, or diversification of a pre-existing one: which adds cost to either the new i7 or the ones with an iGPU. Granted, I would prefer the current cost of CPU's as opposed to an inflated one due to an additional line of i7's without an iGPU.
Adding two more cores would compete with their own product line and possibly cannabalize sales of higher ASP (avg selling price) chips. You have some valid points, but I'm also playing devils advocate
Btw, servers don't care about iGPU - any same server has an IPMI of some form, which comes with a shitty GPU of it's own for KVM usage, usually some version of the venerable Matrox e200W (or something of the sort).
There are a massive number of business users (myself included) that can benefit from the additional resources of an i7 without needing anything other than integrated graphics. Not everyone who buys an i7 is a gamer.
You mean like every IGP solution before Intel and AMD started sticking them on-die? But if they don't use dedicated memory, not such an issue for AMD which stuck with HT, but for Intel that would mean re-integrating the otherwise-unnecessary high-speed bus between the CPU and the chipset on their consumer parts, since the memory controllers are on-die.
it's not intel's fault they make a high performing product.
Their Engineer's invented the patents, and was funded by Intel's billions spent on R&D. The R&D (Research and Development) cost has to be recovered somehow. Not by just products sold.
If anyone could get away with a straight copy of technology, then companies would not make them. And we sure as hell wouldn't get all the technical information we get now adays. It would be all closed and nobody would learn.
Depends what you define as high-end.. If you consider LGA115x to be high-end, then yes, even Xeons have iGPUs, but if you look at the entire range, LGA2011 rules supreme, and no iGPUs to be found on LGA2011 at all.
I read this to see if it was a fair judgment. I agree with China that bundling while no offering the standards based patents for 3G and 4G a la carte is abuse of Qualcom's position. I don't know how much money is fair. I don't know where that nearly billion dollars will go. I think the EU has been abusing its position to basically take money from American companies and transfer it to the EU. This is a subject that needs to be carefully watched.
Interesting, I can't think of a major EU fine which didn't see the light of day due to one or more fellow American companies asking the EU to investigate the case but maybe you can refresh my memory?
i have a 4770K and use the integrated graphics. I would have paid extra to not have the extra complexity, heat, space etc in my system that a pci-e gpu would bring with it.
so I'm thankful intel bundles GPUs with all of their CPUs...
lot's of people use their computers for stuff other than games.
Still, the NDRC is to be applauded. If what they allege is true (and the fact Qualcomm effectively settled seems to confirm it) then they were clearly taking the piss and thoroughly deserved to have their arses kicked for it.
Mind that Qualcomm is fined for its role on 3G and 4G standard, not for their cellphone processors. China is also not the first country to take on Qualcomm on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualcomm#Legal_issues
Is it possible to read a 4 paragraph article and parse the information before making a stupid comment or are you only interested in looking like an idiot?
I dare not feed the trolls. But my comment is entirely correct. Qualcomm's bundling of IP licenses is a world-wide fact, it doesn't just happen in China. But China of all countries (sic) feels they don't need to pay what everyone else does. China is the kind of place that would sue Ford for making you get a Sunroof if you want leather seats, Comcast for making you get ESPN if you want Disney, and EVGA for giving you a free game download when you didn't want one in the first place.
Bundling of packages isn't a new phenomenon, ESPECIALLY in the field of IP licensing. The fact is Qualcomm likely wouldn't charge any less to re-bundle the 3G/4G patents than the legacy way they are bundled now. The only reason....THE ONLY REASON they settled and paid up is because China is a market that will makes them tens of billions over the next decade. It's obvious to anybody that the Chinese government has Qualcomm in a position for strongarm entrapment.
Damn, I fed the trolls. Well, with that said, you are a fucking idiot willis936.
I think it's true - that Qualcomm only agreed because the NDRC would make things worse for them if they didn't. Like bartering with a salesman who RAISES the price every time you dare to make him an offer!
Why isn't the bundling of non-essential IP with essential IP an anti-trust violation just like Microsoft's bundling of software into their operating system? In at least one sense, it seems more clear-cut against Qualcomm, because from the sound of this article, it seems there is absolutely no choice but to license this IP from Qualcomm, whereas there were other operating systems that people could opt for, they just had an extraordinarily low market penetration and were therefore disadvantageous.
Well, I think it's not anti-trust because competing companies with 3G+4G patents and Companies with SoCs are still "competitive" in that Android will still run and offer its services on said devices. regardless of 3G/4G/SoC. The differencse would be companies that offer an integrated SoC with modem and those that are separate and performance/cost (re:Intel/AMD)
I can see QCOMM having an issue here due to China's own 4G LTE, since they didn't want to usurp LTE control/revenue over to foreign companies to expand their 4G; hence TDD vs FCC. Case and point would be regional devices don't support FCC LTE, eg: the Chinese Sony Z3 doesn't support FCC bands, even though it's on the same snapdragon 800 processor meaning a consumer wouldn't be able to use 4G on the device in the US, even though the SoC+Modem should support it. Implications would be Qualcomm would have to develop a new modem for TDD standards and pay the Chinese government for licensing fees, or Sony would have to buy a TDD modem and pay the Chinese government. The legal issue would be Chinese companies paying for a "bundle" who want to use the snapdragon SoC (because chinese SoCs don't sell on high end devices) and not "pay" for FCC support. Problem with this argument would be qualcomm could effectively bundle the SoC and modem for the same price as "webdoctors" highlighted below
You're ridiculous. Whatever qcomm does in the rest of the world is irrelevant because they broke Chinese laws. NDRC wouldn't fine ford/espn/comcast for the reasons you stated because those are shitty reasons and the Chinese aren't as dumb as you think they are. How anyone can take you seriously is beyond me. Grow up.
For someone who's lived there extensively, I'd like to think I know fairly well about the corruption from first, second, and third hand experiences. The NDRC, or ANY chinese agency, would only fine another entity due to gross misconduct or for a power grab to shift it to chinese companies and away from foreign companies. Chinese Laws are broken all the time, even by the own municipal government and elected officials. Everyone's in on it - and it's been the norm for a while now.
With that said, there doesn't seem to be gross misconduct on Qualcomm's part (aside from "pricing issues" aka currency conversion), so this seems really fishy. As for the "legal" system, you can't challenge a totalitarian state and expect to win.
You are all disillusion if you think fining Qualcomm a BILLION dollars for bundling IP licensing isn't in any way a form of corruption and strongarming within the Chinese government.
And fine, need some non-consumer "vendor-vendor" examples?
Cell phone manufactures subsidizing devices to vendors for exclusivity. Isn't this "anti-competitive"? It happens all over the world. Even in China, the iPhone is exclusive to one carrier.
Getrag licensing to Quaff and EMCO gears for 3rd party differential and final drive products, I know they had to license the Getrag IP "portfolio" because I worked for EMCO gears.
And that's the problem, a lot of IP licensing is closed-door/non-public, but assume, always, that licensing is bundled and not specific patent by patent. It simplifies the entire process and is unrealistic to license ONE patent in a mult-billion dollar, constantly evolving, high tech industry. And it is a complete assumption that licensing patent by patent would save the licensee money because it would result in a lot more legal work by the licencor, and legal departments don't work for free.
I apologize I didn't put more than 5 seconds of thought into my examples. They were analogies, not perfect apples-to-apples comparisons. I'm sure a quick google search would net you a wealth of bundled IP licensees. (yep, just did it, nVidia and AMD cross license bundled IP, AMD and Intel license bundled IP, etc. )
China is the most corrupt place I've ever been.The only place I've been told by a government employee to bribe another government employee, was in Beijing. They make a few African and South American countries I've visited a walk in the park when it comes to getting tickets to an event or exiting the country with what "they" claim is forbidden for export, especially electronics. I've even been forced to leave a PDA behind that I brought with me FROM the USA because they claimed I couldn't bring it back and I didn't properly disclose it on my customs form. They said I could keep it for apx $400 USD. The bribe was triple what the Sony Clie was worth. It's only gotten worse.
Further, I have a client who wanted to open a factory in China for rope, and a utility was bribed by a competitor to not supply him power. The utility wanted 25 million dollars to "turn the lights on." He dropped the plans and abandoned the construction, later opening the factory in another city.
Amen. Man, if u saw the gov. corruption that was for the billions of RMB investment for the development of the 2014 World Asia games (total of 5 buildings if I recall) behind closed doors u'd be so shocked. I sure was.
Every example you listed is a vender-consumer scenario. Not vendor-vendor IP licensing. You wouldn't hold a company accountable for failing to comply with anti-trust laws for how they bundled their consumer products.
Aren't the Chinese entitled to make their own laws? The issue is not what QC wants the world to look like, or what it does in the rest of the world. The issue is: "WHAT DOES CHINESE LAW SAY?" QC has the choices: - don't sell in China OR - sell in China following Chinese law. There isn't some special "follow the law as we wish it were" third option.
I don't see any QC defenders here DENYING the central point, that QC willingly refused to follow Chinese law. THAT is the point. Whether or not you like the law is not the point. Most of us don't like plenty about US patent law, but we aren't arguing that a company can just decide to ignore that patent law if it feels like it.
That's very true. If I were QC, i would boycott China - sure I would lose the "potential" market share and profits (or what's left of them after this), but it'd also throw their domestic mobile manufacturer's to the dark ages - something that QC doesn't seem to realize. China needs QC more than QC needs China.
QCOM has been doing this for 5+ years. That's how they cornered the cellphone and to some extent tablet market for North America. They'd sell the modem for $40 or the integrated modem+AP SoC for $40. It was a no-brainer to get the SoC from QCOM since otherwise you'd be paying double the cost going with any other vendor. This only changed recently with Samsung using their Exynos processor, and Apple being the exception who were willing to pay the extra cost for just the modem.
We've seen this with Samsung, LG, Xioami using Qualcomm SoCs when they needed the QCOM modem, and other SoCs when they didn't. The monopolistic prices forced the design choices.
IANAL so I don't know if this is legal in Europe/N. America/Asia, but I assume it was, otherwise it would've been stopped long ago. I guess someone forgot to bribe someone in China....as this HW bundling has been going on long before QCOM did it...its called the combo pricing
Two disturbing trends are, firstly, the poor behaviour of corporations, and secondly the rampant bleeding of corporations by powerful nation states or trading blocs.
We need a revolution in corporate and governmental transparency, and to develop a strong ethical culture in both spheres. Unfortunately, there is no sign of this happening.
Rather, since everybody who can cheat or take a shortcut seems only too happy to do so, we all want to get in on the act.
One part I was not able to understand was that even though the percentage of patent fees has remained unchanged,only 65% of total value of the smartphone will be used for calculating patent fees. So in reality there has been a reduction in patent fees. Chinese manufacturers are already able to compete very fiercely with really thin margins. Reduction in patent fees will help the compete better I believe.
While the news byte is interesting, this is the second mostly content-free article I've read about this event and it's getting a little old. Is the content of the dispute that much a secret that it can't be summarized for a report? I see vague stuff about 3/4G bundling and device value calculations. How are the terms they are offering to Chinese companies different from elsewhere? Why is this a matter for legal intervention instead of a case of business negotiating position? How is it different from the style of tactics that Intel applies basically everywhere? (If the latter's behavior with Bay Trail et al. doesn't qualify as dumping I don't know what does.)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
59 Comments
Back to Article
ddriver - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Do MS next! Intel too, for bundling integrated graphics in high end products everyone on Earth would combine with a high end discrete GPU.Impulses - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Pretty sure you're free to buy your CPU from anyone else...ddriver - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Really? Does anyone besides Intel manufacture high performance CPUs? That die space could have easily be saved to make the chip 30% cheaper, or add another extra 2 CPU cores, both would be better than a weak GPU that will sit idle for the sole purpose of boosting Intel's GPU market numbers.dstarr3 - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
That's a pretty dumb comment.ddriver - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Yeah, not like you, making such an excellently valid point LOL /spewterrock - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
You realize they sell desktop processors that don't have integrated graphics*, right? Look up the X79 and X99 chipsets.iniudan - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Would be better to point to the cpu socket LGA2011 and LGA2011-v3 then the chipset of the motherboard that will have those socket.As CPU spec chart usually don't list the motherboard chipset.
ddriver - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
That is true, but then you have to pay a price premium, so the lack of the unneeded GPU doesn't really benefit the purchase value. Who in this world buys an i7 to use with the integrated graphics? I certainly haven't seen a case, integrated graphics makes sense in value to low midrange, everything over that is just intel wasting silicon to boost its GPU marketshare stats. And it is not like the GPU is some miniscule chunk of the die, so it would be the same with or without it.The same way you are also free to use satphones instead of qualcomm's 3g/4g, and it will also come at a price premium. Nobody is forcing the industry to use qualcomm's IP right? No more than nobody is forcing me to buy Intel chips, but in reality I seek best value for my money as does the communication industry, that's why it is obligated to pay qualcomm royalties for its IP bundles and that's why I am obligated to buy Intel's products which are bundled with a GPU I don't need just as those firms don't need the extra patents qualcomm bundles.
The situation is pretty much identical, a company abuses its marketing position to cram extra stuff down its consumers' throats they don't really need but have to pay for, it happens, even if some people apparently don't have the capacity to realize it.
Sushisamurai - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
You bring up a lot of good points, especially with the Intel argument and the last bit about leveraging marketing position (market share). However, until i had a dedicated GPU, i did make use of my i5-4K processor's integrated GPU for gaming, so that's one case.Historically, Intel as a corporation (not non-profit) has margins of 60-65% on their chips, contrasted to AMD's 30-35% - rightfully so, corporations' main goals are to make money; benefit to the consumer comes afterwards.
As nice as Intel would be to make a specialized 4 core i-7 without an iGPU, I believe they chose not to not only for your reasons described above, but also because of logistics. To develop, manufacture, distribute, and market this new "i7" with the same current socket; the extra costs could very well be implemented into the price of this new "i7", coupled with the fact the market may have a decreased demand for just a CPU without iGPU, the cost to consumer while maintaining that 65% margin may be the same as an i7 with a iGPU. The extra costs of the new i7 would be shifted to consumers, as well as increasing the cost of the i7's /w iGPU's, and increasing the consumer price. The costs will shift to somewhere, and most likely to consumer as intel has historically liked their 65% margins. I would. If the choice were to have two i7 types associated with increases in price of all their processor ranges, or i7 with integrated and cheaper prices, I would probably choose the integrated option.
ddriver - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
You make it sound like they use the same stencils to make everything with integrated GPU. i3, i5, i7, even their different variations have different layout, and reusing those somehow saves on development cost.They could just as easily simply not have iGPU on i7 and that would actually save them a lot of money, allow them to sell the chips cheaper while still hitting their desired margins.
To be honest, iGPU in high end chips ONLY makes sense in server chips, were you only need the CPU power and barely enough GPU to manage it though a UI. But workstations, gaming - those MANDATE you get a good dedicated GPU, making the iGPU a waste of die space. And yet server chips, which could use a mediocre iGPU don't come with any. Probably because there are plenty multisocket systems, on which the "extra iGPUs" would be redundant, but then again, so is the iGPU in i7, and unlike the "desktop enthusiast" the server chips have tremendously higher margins, so the redundancy might actually be "more justified".
And getting back to choice and what would consumers prefer, I am pretty sure at least 99% of the people who buy i7 would prefer to get 2 extra cores at the same price and power envelope than the iGPU.
ddriver - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
But then again, if they don't sell a useless GPU with each and every i7, intel will lose GPU market share, even if tiny, since they don't sell nearly as much i7 as they do cheaper chips.I don't really see any practical side to why i7 would need iGPU in the first place, there is no need to spend extra money on developing two i7 varieties, the iGPU-less i7 is all that is really needed.
But I guess intel's had a hard time boosting performance marginally the last few years, so the way they "prefer" to make up for it is to push useless features to their costumers rather than a few extra cores. They prefer to waste the silicon than put it to good use. I am sure AMD's struggling (understatement) to compete has a lot to do with that kind of behavior.
Sushisamurai - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
I'm not saying they use stencils (simplified) - I'm simply stating that creating an i7 without iGPU would mean at the very least another manufacturing line, or diversification of a pre-existing one: which adds cost to either the new i7 or the ones with an iGPU. Granted, I would prefer the current cost of CPU's as opposed to an inflated one due to an additional line of i7's without an iGPU.Adding two more cores would compete with their own product line and possibly cannabalize sales of higher ASP (avg selling price) chips. You have some valid points, but I'm also playing devils advocate
ZeDestructor - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link
Btw, servers don't care about iGPU - any same server has an IPMI of some form, which comes with a shitty GPU of it's own for KVM usage, usually some version of the venerable Matrox e200W (or something of the sort).RobertJB001 - Friday, February 13, 2015 - link
But servers don't get integrated Graphicseg
E5-2623V3 @ 3Ghz Haswell 22nm
(Ballpark equivalent here)
i7-5557U @ 3.4Ghz Broadwell 14nm (2core/4thread)
So the i7 gets 2 cores & lower power but the E5 discards the GPU in favour of (yep more cores) 2 physical ones so it's 4core multi thread.
Then Intel put a premium on it BECAUSE you get more cores...
ZeDestructor - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link
This is, they already do so on some Xeons. Granted, it s the same die, withe the iGPU disabled, but it does exist.MrTeal - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
There are a massive number of business users (myself included) that can benefit from the additional resources of an i7 without needing anything other than integrated graphics. Not everyone who buys an i7 is a gamer.Oxford Guy - Sunday, February 15, 2015 - link
Why not just have a crap GPU on the motherboard as they already do with sound chips and ethernet?Azurael - Monday, February 23, 2015 - link
You mean like every IGP solution before Intel and AMD started sticking them on-die? But if they don't use dedicated memory, not such an issue for AMD which stuck with HT, but for Intel that would mean re-integrating the otherwise-unnecessary high-speed bus between the CPU and the chipset on their consumer parts, since the memory controllers are on-die.Morawka - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
it's not intel's fault they make a high performing product.Their Engineer's invented the patents, and was funded by Intel's billions spent on R&D. The R&D (Research and Development) cost has to be recovered somehow. Not by just products sold.
If anyone could get away with a straight copy of technology, then companies would not make them. And we sure as hell wouldn't get all the technical information we get now adays. It would be all closed and nobody would learn.
djscrew - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
this comment lacks logicddriver - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
The lack of logic is in you I am afraid.auzn - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Intel has actually been fined by European Union for $1.4bddriver - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
But for anti-competitive practices, not for shoving unnecessary "bundled" hardware down at consumers throats.mr_tawan - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
I'm pretty sure that the highend products of intel are Xeon, which does not have integrated graphics.mr_tawan - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Seems like I'm wrong :PZeDestructor - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link
Depends what you define as high-end.. If you consider LGA115x to be high-end, then yes, even Xeons have iGPUs, but if you look at the entire range, LGA2011 rules supreme, and no iGPUs to be found on LGA2011 at all.eanazag - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
I read this to see if it was a fair judgment. I agree with China that bundling while no offering the standards based patents for 3G and 4G a la carte is abuse of Qualcom's position. I don't know how much money is fair. I don't know where that nearly billion dollars will go. I think the EU has been abusing its position to basically take money from American companies and transfer it to the EU. This is a subject that needs to be carefully watched.Kvaern2 - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Interesting, I can't think of a major EU fine which didn't see the light of day due to one or more fellow American companies asking the EU to investigate the case but maybe you can refresh my memory?Pissedoffyouth - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Lets take Kelloggs to court for bundling in some unwanted plastic toy with their cereal.Or lets take you to court for bundling your strange comment in with this article.
8steve8 - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
i have a 4770K and use the integrated graphics. I would have paid extra to not have the extra complexity, heat, space etc in my system that a pci-e gpu would bring with it.so I'm thankful intel bundles GPUs with all of their CPUs...
lot's of people use their computers for stuff other than games.
djscrew - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Wow, China is punishing an American company for actually being anti-competitive rather than out-innovating it's Chinese counterparts. How refreshing.AnnonymousCoward - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Yet another reason why China sucks. This looks like a BS money grab.hung2900 - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Did you read or do you know how to read? It's clear Qualcomm's fault.Notmyusualid - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
That is exactly what it is. The whole country is full of commies & crooks.They should clean up their own back yard first...
Alexey291 - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Oh wow I don't even... Could this comment have been more murrican than this?Go start a war on them or something? Oh wait... they might actually fight back :)
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Which one of us, holds two passports, filled with Chinese visas and stamps.Oh, that'd be me then. Since 1999.
I take my EXPERIENCE of business in China, over your flippant comment anyday.
Pissedoffyouth - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Hold on to your net son, we got a real live expect over here!Kvaern2 - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Technically they are cleaning up their own backyard.boozed - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Anti-trust in China, now I've seen it all!Still, the NDRC is to be applauded. If what they allege is true (and the fact Qualcomm effectively settled seems to confirm it) then they were clearly taking the piss and thoroughly deserved to have their arses kicked for it.
auzn - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Mind that Qualcomm is fined for its role on 3G and 4G standard, not for their cellphone processors. China is also not the first country to take on Qualcomm on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualcomm#Legal_issuesSamus - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
So China doesn't believe in licensing IP? Shocking...willis936 - Monday, February 9, 2015 - link
Is it possible to read a 4 paragraph article and parse the information before making a stupid comment or are you only interested in looking like an idiot?Samus - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
I dare not feed the trolls. But my comment is entirely correct. Qualcomm's bundling of IP licenses is a world-wide fact, it doesn't just happen in China. But China of all countries (sic) feels they don't need to pay what everyone else does. China is the kind of place that would sue Ford for making you get a Sunroof if you want leather seats, Comcast for making you get ESPN if you want Disney, and EVGA for giving you a free game download when you didn't want one in the first place.Bundling of packages isn't a new phenomenon, ESPECIALLY in the field of IP licensing. The fact is Qualcomm likely wouldn't charge any less to re-bundle the 3G/4G patents than the legacy way they are bundled now. The only reason....THE ONLY REASON they settled and paid up is because China is a market that will makes them tens of billions over the next decade. It's obvious to anybody that the Chinese government has Qualcomm in a position for strongarm entrapment.
Damn, I fed the trolls. Well, with that said, you are a fucking idiot willis936.
DCide - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
I think it's true - that Qualcomm only agreed because the NDRC would make things worse for them if they didn't. Like bartering with a salesman who RAISES the price every time you dare to make him an offer!garbagedisposal - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
And this differs from negotiations in other countries how?... right, it doesn't. way to show your ignorance and add no new ideas!Yojimbo - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Why isn't the bundling of non-essential IP with essential IP an anti-trust violation just like Microsoft's bundling of software into their operating system? In at least one sense, it seems more clear-cut against Qualcomm, because from the sound of this article, it seems there is absolutely no choice but to license this IP from Qualcomm, whereas there were other operating systems that people could opt for, they just had an extraordinarily low market penetration and were therefore disadvantageous.Sushisamurai - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Well, I think it's not anti-trust because competing companies with 3G+4G patents and Companies with SoCs are still "competitive" in that Android will still run and offer its services on said devices. regardless of 3G/4G/SoC. The differencse would be companies that offer an integrated SoC with modem and those that are separate and performance/cost (re:Intel/AMD)I can see QCOMM having an issue here due to China's own 4G LTE, since they didn't want to usurp LTE control/revenue over to foreign companies to expand their 4G; hence TDD vs FCC. Case and point would be regional devices don't support FCC LTE, eg: the Chinese Sony Z3 doesn't support FCC bands, even though it's on the same snapdragon 800 processor meaning a consumer wouldn't be able to use 4G on the device in the US, even though the SoC+Modem should support it. Implications would be Qualcomm would have to develop a new modem for TDD standards and pay the Chinese government for licensing fees, or Sony would have to buy a TDD modem and pay the Chinese government. The legal issue would be Chinese companies paying for a "bundle" who want to use the snapdragon SoC (because chinese SoCs don't sell on high end devices) and not "pay" for FCC support. Problem with this argument would be qualcomm could effectively bundle the SoC and modem for the same price as "webdoctors" highlighted below
Notmyusualid - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Well said.garbagedisposal - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
You're ridiculous. Whatever qcomm does in the rest of the world is irrelevant because they broke Chinese laws. NDRC wouldn't fine ford/espn/comcast for the reasons you stated because those are shitty reasons and the Chinese aren't as dumb as you think they are. How anyone can take you seriously is beyond me. Grow up.Sushisamurai - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
For someone who's lived there extensively, I'd like to think I know fairly well about the corruption from first, second, and third hand experiences. The NDRC, or ANY chinese agency, would only fine another entity due to gross misconduct or for a power grab to shift it to chinese companies and away from foreign companies. Chinese Laws are broken all the time, even by the own municipal government and elected officials. Everyone's in on it - and it's been the norm for a while now.With that said, there doesn't seem to be gross misconduct on Qualcomm's part (aside from "pricing issues" aka currency conversion), so this seems really fishy. As for the "legal" system, you can't challenge a totalitarian state and expect to win.
Samus - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
You are all disillusion if you think fining Qualcomm a BILLION dollars for bundling IP licensing isn't in any way a form of corruption and strongarming within the Chinese government.And fine, need some non-consumer "vendor-vendor" examples?
Cell phone manufactures subsidizing devices to vendors for exclusivity. Isn't this "anti-competitive"? It happens all over the world. Even in China, the iPhone is exclusive to one carrier.
Getrag licensing to Quaff and EMCO gears for 3rd party differential and final drive products, I know they had to license the Getrag IP "portfolio" because I worked for EMCO gears.
And that's the problem, a lot of IP licensing is closed-door/non-public, but assume, always, that licensing is bundled and not specific patent by patent. It simplifies the entire process and is unrealistic to license ONE patent in a mult-billion dollar, constantly evolving, high tech industry. And it is a complete assumption that licensing patent by patent would save the licensee money because it would result in a lot more legal work by the licencor, and legal departments don't work for free.
I apologize I didn't put more than 5 seconds of thought into my examples. They were analogies, not perfect apples-to-apples comparisons. I'm sure a quick google search would net you a wealth of bundled IP licensees. (yep, just did it, nVidia and AMD cross license bundled IP, AMD and Intel license bundled IP, etc. )
China is the most corrupt place I've ever been.The only place I've been told by a government employee to bribe another government employee, was in Beijing. They make a few African and South American countries I've visited a walk in the park when it comes to getting tickets to an event or exiting the country with what "they" claim is forbidden for export, especially electronics. I've even been forced to leave a PDA behind that I brought with me FROM the USA because they claimed I couldn't bring it back and I didn't properly disclose it on my customs form. They said I could keep it for apx $400 USD. The bribe was triple what the Sony Clie was worth. It's only gotten worse.
Further, I have a client who wanted to open a factory in China for rope, and a utility was bribed by a competitor to not supply him power. The utility wanted 25 million dollars to "turn the lights on." He dropped the plans and abandoned the construction, later opening the factory in another city.
Sushisamurai - Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - link
Amen. Man, if u saw the gov. corruption that was for the billions of RMB investment for the development of the 2014 World Asia games (total of 5 buildings if I recall) behind closed doors u'd be so shocked. I sure was.willis936 - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Every example you listed is a vender-consumer scenario. Not vendor-vendor IP licensing. You wouldn't hold a company accountable for failing to comply with anti-trust laws for how they bundled their consumer products.name99 - Friday, February 13, 2015 - link
Aren't the Chinese entitled to make their own laws?The issue is not what QC wants the world to look like, or what it does in the rest of the world. The issue is: "WHAT DOES CHINESE LAW SAY?"
QC has the choices:
- don't sell in China OR
- sell in China following Chinese law.
There isn't some special "follow the law as we wish it were" third option.
I don't see any QC defenders here DENYING the central point, that QC willingly refused to follow Chinese law. THAT is the point. Whether or not you like the law is not the point.
Most of us don't like plenty about US patent law, but we aren't arguing that a company can just decide to ignore that patent law if it feels like it.
Sushisamurai - Saturday, February 14, 2015 - link
That's very true. If I were QC, i would boycott China - sure I would lose the "potential" market share and profits (or what's left of them after this), but it'd also throw their domestic mobile manufacturer's to the dark ages - something that QC doesn't seem to realize. China needs QC more than QC needs China.webdoctors - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
QCOM has been doing this for 5+ years. That's how they cornered the cellphone and to some extent tablet market for North America. They'd sell the modem for $40 or the integrated modem+AP SoC for $40. It was a no-brainer to get the SoC from QCOM since otherwise you'd be paying double the cost going with any other vendor. This only changed recently with Samsung using their Exynos processor, and Apple being the exception who were willing to pay the extra cost for just the modem.We've seen this with Samsung, LG, Xioami using Qualcomm SoCs when they needed the QCOM modem, and other SoCs when they didn't. The monopolistic prices forced the design choices.
IANAL so I don't know if this is legal in Europe/N. America/Asia, but I assume it was, otherwise it would've been stopped long ago. I guess someone forgot to bribe someone in China....as this HW bundling has been going on long before QCOM did it...its called the combo pricing
Klug4Pres - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
Two disturbing trends are, firstly, the poor behaviour of corporations, and secondly the rampant bleeding of corporations by powerful nation states or trading blocs.We need a revolution in corporate and governmental transparency, and to develop a strong ethical culture in both spheres. Unfortunately, there is no sign of this happening.
Rather, since everybody who can cheat or take a shortcut seems only too happy to do so, we all want to get in on the act.
TT Masterzz - Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - link
One part I was not able to understand was that even though the percentage of patent fees has remained unchanged,only 65% of total value of the smartphone will be used for calculating patent fees. So in reality there has been a reduction in patent fees. Chinese manufacturers are already able to compete very fiercely with really thin margins. Reduction in patent fees will help the compete better I believe.ABR - Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - link
While the news byte is interesting, this is the second mostly content-free article I've read about this event and it's getting a little old. Is the content of the dispute that much a secret that it can't be summarized for a report? I see vague stuff about 3/4G bundling and device value calculations. How are the terms they are offering to Chinese companies different from elsewhere? Why is this a matter for legal intervention instead of a case of business negotiating position? How is it different from the style of tactics that Intel applies basically everywhere? (If the latter's behavior with Bay Trail et al. doesn't qualify as dumping I don't know what does.)