FTC Fires Back at DOJ Over Qualcomm Competition
Justice Department's concerns about national security are "unsubstantiated," the commission says, and an improper attempt to shield Qualcomm from the antitrust laws.
July 19, 2019 at 07:01 PM
3 minute read
The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission's rift over the Qualcomm antitrust case continued on public display Thursday, as FTC accused DOJ of trying to shield the wireless connectivity giant from antitrust law.
The Justice Department's antitrust division, with the support of the Defense and Energy departments, filed a statement of interest earlier this week that asked the Ninth Circuit to stay U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's antitrust injunction. Without a stay pending appeal, Qualcomm will be harmed and rivals such as Huawei Technologies will be strengthened as 5G connectivity is rolled out, to the detriment of U.S. national and even nuclear security, DOJ argues.
The FTC filed its opposition Thursday, engaging more on the merits of Koh's decision and less directly on national security. But it did have a few sharp words for the DOJ along the way.
“Qualcomm's argument, at bottom, is that the injunction entered below will cause it to lose revenues,” the FTC states in a brief signed by Deputy General Counsel Heather Hippsley. “But the order permits Qualcomm to secure every dollar to which it is entitled: market-based prices for its chips, and royalties that reflect the value of its patents.”
Koh found after a bench trial that Qualcomm's “no-license-no-chips” policy and its refusal to license standard-essential patents to competitors has “strangled competition” in the modem chip market. She ordered Qualcomm to offer licenses to competitors and “negotiate or renegotiate, as applicable” licenses with smartphone makers without threatening to disrupt modem chip supply.
That will help development of 5G, while promoting “national champions” won't, the FTC argues. “The policy judgment underlying the antitrust laws is that an industry will be more innovative and efficient if freed from anticompetitive constraints,” Hippsley writes.
The DOJ's claims about national security are “unsubstantiated” and misplaced. “Nothing in the remedy requires any catastrophic financial impact to Qualcomm,” she writes. “Indeed, the record shows that Qualcomm spends more on stock buybacks and dividends than it does on R&D.”
What DOJ wants is for Qualcomm to be freed from antitrust scrutiny, Hippsley contends. “If legitimate national security objectives require subsidizing Qualcomm, and taxing Qualcomm's rivals and United States consumers to do so, there are proper political channels for pursuing those objectives,” she writes. “Interference in the judicial resolution of an action to enforce the antitrust laws is not one of them.”
Other lawyers appearing on the brief with Hippsley include D. Bruce Hoffman, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, and the bureau's chief trial counsel, Jennifer Milici, who led the FTC's team at trial before Koh.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Never-Ending Nightmare': Apple Sued for Alleged Failure to Protect Child Sexual Abuse Survivors
HubSpot Chief Legal Officer Departs 'Upon Mutual Agreement' After Just 2 Years
2 minute readOpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250