Moorhead is also a contributor for both Forbes, CIO, and the Next Platform. If the judges seemed skeptical of the DOJ’s assertions that the ruling would affect national security, they seemed even more suspicious of the FTC’s case for Qualcomm’s anticompetitive behavior. I believe Qualcomm's advantage and investment simply made it more difficult for competitors to keep up. Even if the Court accepts everything the FTC presented to be fact, it could still decide that no antitrust violation happened, at which point the case would be over, though the FTC could then appeal to the Supreme Court. ... the FTC has now appealed its Qualcomm case to the full Ninth Circuit. 28/10/2020 10:02pm Dow Jones News ... year to throw out a government antitrust case against Qualcomm Inc. Apple would beg to differ. From the start, I’ve seen this case as a very significant one, with potential long-term ramifications in terms of the U.S. government essentially acting as an IP price-fixer. This never happens and could ultimately help Qualcomm. Update 1 (5/22/19 @ 9:50 AM ET): A US judge has ruled in favor of the FTC and now Qualcomm must stop bundling patent licensing deals with … So this case was brought in January 2017, and from the beginning, the case was rather unique. Qualcomm called company executives, representatives from handset makers and chip rivals, and economics experts to dispute the FTC's allegations in the case. Research describes expenditures that develop core IP and standards, which very few companies invest in. There could also be a sort of mixed ruling where the judges side with Qualcomm on one aspect, likely “duty to deal”, but kick the case back down to Judge Koh to have a second go at the FTC’s assertion that Qualcomm’s practices are anticompetitive. One of the three judges presiding over the case, Stephen Murphy III, said out loud that he was having difficulty keeping up with the FTC’s arguments. If the case all sounds very confusing, it’s because it is. There’s also the point to be made about Qualcomm’s competitors, that there are a lot of reasons why chip companies succeed and fail. While Qualcomm’s attorneys were certainly also questioned by the judges, it seemed to me as though there was not the same level of skepticism underpinning these lines of questioning. My personal read on this was that the judges were very focused on case law and trying to avoid a scenario where they were creating a new precedent. The decision validates our business model and licensing program and underscores the tremendous contributions that Qualcomm has made to the industry. Apple believed what Qualcomm was charging was above and beyond what was fair, and that when it couldn’t agree to a fee, it had to let the court decide and held payments until that time because the company didn’t know what to pay. Where things stand now: likely a Qualcomm win. At the time, there were only three of the usual five members at the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC. The judges appeared skeptical of the DOJ’s position, however, requesting more specific evidence from the DOJ’s attorney to substantiate the assertions. The FTC filed a complaint in federal district court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products. Qualcomm presented its key arguments to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals several weeks ago on February 13th. Qualcomm settled its differences with Apple in 2019, and last year won the FTC case in a federal appeals court. Additionally, I believe it could potentially hurt U.S. competitiveness in 5G, autonomous cars, smart cities, and impact its national security and more. Patrick was ranked the #1 analyst out of 8,000 in the ARInsights Power 100 rankings and the #1 most cited analyst as ranked by Apollo Research. Qualcomm Incorporated includes Qualcomm's licensing business, QTL, and the vast majority of its patent portfolio. Brian Fletcher, the attorney representing the FTC, made the counterargument, that it was Qualcomm’s supposedly anticompetitive practices that nudged Intel out of the market and made Qualcomm the dominant force in the U.S. Overall, the tenor of the judges’ questions seemed to indicate a significant skepticism of the FTC’s arguments and the merits of its case against the semiconductor company—particularly in the question of whether or not the company’s practices go beyond hyper-competition into something that could be considered anti-competitive.