"Which? claimed that Qualcomm abused its market position as a dominant producer of processors and radio chips for smartphones, and that even Samsung and Apple felt they had no alternative but to pay inflated prices for some parts and then passed on the costs to buyers. UK consumers, the group argued, therefore paid more for certain smartphones between October 2015 and January 2024."
"Qualcomm did not coerce Apple, Apple's Chipset Manufacturers (CMs), or Samsung to sign any patent licences or chipset agreements; Qualcomm did not leverage its position as a chipset supplier to coerce Apple, Apple's CMs, or Samsung to agree to any licensing terms; and Qualcomm's licensing and chipset practices did not infringe competition laws, did not result in inflated royalties, and did not lead to an increase in prices consumers paid for their mobile phones."
The UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal indicated it will find Qualcomm did not abuse its market power, prompting Which? to withdraw a claim seeking compensation for higher smartphone prices. Which? alleged Qualcomm coerced manufacturers and forced inflated parts pricing, which was then passed to buyers, affecting up to 29 million UK residents and resulting in a claimed collective overpayment of £480 million between October 2015 and January 2024. A five-week trial heard evidence from senior Qualcomm executives and expert economists. The Tribunal signalled three findings that no coercion, leveraging, licensing infringement, inflated royalties, or consumer price increases resulted, and the parties agreed to end the case without payment.
Read at Theregister
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]