Nvidia Accuses Qualcomm Of Mobile Chip Monopoly; Demands Compensation For Unfair Practices - 352 milion $

[Mr_Troll]

Nvidia Wants Qualcomm To Compensate Its $352 Million Icera Failure Court Hearings Reveal
 

Quote

 

When it comes to mobile hardware and processors, US manufacturer Qualcomm has been comfortably dominating the industry for quite a while. Not only does the company manufacture the Snapdragon lineup of chipsets, that are present in almost every mainstream Android smartphone, flagship or other, out there, but its other offerings, including wireless modules, patents and more make sure that it maintains a strong market position.

 

GPU manufacturer Nvidia on the other hand has been making its presence known PC hardware sphere, particularly after yesterday’s GTC 2016. We saw the company showcase its Pascal architecture on board the P-100, alongside a couple of other launches that should keep things nice and interesting for some time. Nvidia’s also been at odds with Qualcomm for quite a while, claiming that the latter uses its market position unfairly and today we’ve got some more news for you on this front.

 

 

Nvidia Accuses Qualcomm Of Mobile Chip Monopoly; Demands Compensation For Unfair Practices
 

Quote

 

When it comes to allegations of unfair practices with respect to its market share, Qualcomm’s been in the news for quite a while now. The US chip giant has seen accusations from a variety of quarters claiming that due to its aggressive industry strategies, competition and smaller manufacturers have been suffering. Nvidia’s made similar claims as well and today we get to learn some more details on the matter.

 

As the GTC was underway yesterday, details about Nvidia’s court hearings against Qualcomm in London were also starting to make rounds. The chip maker claims that Qualcomm’s abuse of its dominant position in the mobile processor market has forced it to quit its own plans for similar technology, making it incur substantial losses in the process.

 

To recap, in 2011 Nvidia spent $352 million to acquire soft modem tech firm Icera. It was however forced to terminate things just four years after in 2015, alleging that Qualcomm’s aggressive pricing strategies forced it out of competition and made it incur significant losses.

 

Quote

 

According to Nvidia, Qualcomm’s aggressive and unfair market tactics led to “unexplained delays in customer orders, reductions in demand volumes and contracts never being entered into, even after a customer or mobile network cooperating with a prospective customer has agreed or expressed a strong intention to purchase”.

 

The US chipmaking giant has already faced similar accusations of selling its modem chips below their costs of development and production in order to drive out smaller competitors from the market. While Qualcomm is able to absorb losses which it incurs from such moves owing to the massive revenues it earns from patents and other products, the resulting impact from such decision leaves other, smaller companies in more difficult situations.

 

Whether Nvidia will prevail over Qualcomm in this alleged ”unlawful abuse of dominance”, we’ll find out soon enough. Things aren’t looking that well for the US chipmaker however as the amount of similar allegations piles up. Thoughts? Let us know what you think in the comments section below and stay tuned for the latest.

 

 

Typical Nvidia. Pointing fingers on everyone.

Source:http://wccftech.com/nvidia-accuses-qualcomm-mobile-chip-monopoly/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/nvidia-demands-qualcomm-pay-up-after-demise-of-352-million-unit

 

[Kobathor]

That's like saying nVidia has a monopoly on the GPU market, or Intel has a monopoly on the desktop CPU market. It's simply not true. Market share /= monopoly.

 

What is nVidia doing? Dumbasses.

[ivan134]

If there is anyone well versed in financial law, is selling your products below their actual worth illegal?

[mikat]

5 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

That's like saying nVidia has a monopoly on the GPU market, or Intel has a monopoly on the desktop CPU market. It's simply not true. Market share /= monopoly.

 

What is nVidia doing? Dumbasses.

they are trying to get free money, everyone wants free money

[2FA]

Nvidia thinking they had the best SoCs when in reality their Tegra line wasn't that spectacular.

[mikat]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

If there is anyone well versed in financial law, is selling your products below their actual worth illegal?

why would it be illegal though

[themaniac]

inb4 people shout saying that NVidia is also a monopoly, which is by no means true

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, mikat said:

why would it be illegal though

To us lay men, it seems like it shouldn't be, even if it is an assholish thing to do, but maybe there are laws against it and I want to know if there are.

[Mew]

It's simple. Make a good chip and people will want it. People are wanting the exynos version of the s7 for the better performance and battery life because Qualcomm no longer is able to make the best cpu. 

[lh99]

isn´t a monopoly only if you are the only competitive seller, but i think samsung is also competitive with there exynos lineup

[CoffeeandBagels]

New nvidiya sli cell phones! Just bolt two phones together for additional speed!

[Renegade7369]

5 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

If there is anyone well versed in financial law, is selling your products below their actual worth illegal?

It is not illegal. However, there are things like the Predatory Pricing law set by the Federal Trade Commission that are supposed to prevent things like this. This does not stop a company from selling products well below value for reasons like: customers buying in bulk and getting a discount, lowering prices to clear inventory for new products, etc. Predatory Pricing law really only takes effect if there is stupidly obvious evidence that a company is lowering prices to attempt to wipe competitors off the map, not just to "compete at similar price points."

[Burusutazu]

I really liked the Tegra 3 in my old Nexus 7, was quite snappy. Now if only nvdida would actually put work into their chips for something other than android gaming.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Hey, leave the Snapdragon maker alone you twats!

[GauntletV2]

29 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

If there is anyone well versed in financial law, is selling your products below their actual worth illegal?

In itself its not illegal, but if it is determined that by doing so, other producers are put out of business, and then consequentially the price that they were selling it at so cheap for went above actual price because they basically control the market now, then it is considered a monopoly and malpractice suits will be filed

[Renegade7369]

1 minute ago, GauntletV2 said:

In itself its not illegal, but if it is determined that by doing so, other producers are put out of business, and then consequentially the price that they were selling it at so cheap for went above actual price because they basically control the market now, then it is considered a monopoly and malpractice suits will be filed

Right. It can pretty much only be considered illegal if the intention is to put another company out of business.

[GauntletV2]

37 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

That's like saying nVidia has a monopoly on the GPU market, or Intel has a monopoly on the desktop CPU market. It's simply not true. Market share /= monopoly.

 

What is nVidia doing? Dumbasses.

But nvidia doesnt have a monopoly, and even so, it would be determined that they dont even if amd went under because they have a great case that amd went full retard over the last few years. Same with intel. Also amd still holds anywhere between 20-30% of the market for gpus and then cpus, so neither really have a monopoly.

[Kobathor]

2 minutes ago, GauntletV2 said:

But nvidia doesnt have a monopoly, and even so, it would be determined that they dont even if amd went under because they have a great case that amd went full retard over the last few years. Same with intel. Also amd still holds anywhere between 20-30% of the market for gpus and then cpus, so neither really have a monopoly.

 

42 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

That's like saying nVidia has a monopoly on the GPU market, or Intel has a monopoly on the desktop CPU market. It's simply not true. Market share /= monopoly.

 

[zMeul]

Quote

The compensation claim comes as European Union regulators step up antitrust investigations into Qualcomm sales tactics that officials said thwarted other designers of mobile-phone chip technology. Such objections can lead to fines or an EU order forcing a company to change its behavior.
The EU said Qualcomm may have charged below-cost fees for chips used in mobile Internet modems known as dongles from 2009 to 2011 to thwart smaller competitor Icera. Regulators are separately probing what they say are exclusivity payments Qualcomm paid to a phone and tablet manufacturer for using its designs.

there might be something there, but I found it funny nVidia accuses someone of monopoly type practices 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Goddamn this thread is full of quotes!

[VagabondWraith]

nVidia should partner with Asetek. They'd be in court more than they work on their own products!

[Trixanity]

I'd say it's pretty rich coming from Nvidia.

 

However, I'm quite certain Qualcomm is trying to pull an Intel in the mobile business. 

So it might not be unwarranted.

[SImoHayha]

ITS CALLED HARD FUCKING WORK AND MAKING A CHIP THAT PROVIDES THE NEEDS FOR A GOOD PRICE.

 

DON'T BE BITCHING AT PEOPLE IF YOU CAN'T DO WHAT THEY DO. SIMPLE AS THAT.

 

[Prysin]

1 hour ago, Kobathor said:

That's like saying nVidia has a monopoly on the GPU market, or Intel has a monopoly on the desktop CPU market. It's simply not true. Market share /= monopoly.

 

What is nVidia doing? Dumbasses.

What Nvidia is doing?

Trying to save what little they can from their mobile division.

 

Seeing how much shit they have had with their SHIELD tablets, i can't imagine their Mobile division doing very well atm.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, Kobathor said:

That's like saying nVidia has a monopoly on the GPU market, or Intel has a monopoly on the desktop CPU market. It's simply not true. Market share /= monopoly.

 

What is nVidia doing? Dumbasses.

Monopoly does not require 100% market share. It just requires significant market dominance, and monopoly alone is not illegal. What Nvidia is accusing Qualcomm of is anti-competitive practices in selling chips below-cost and eating the losses to prevent competition with potentially better products from being able to survive long enough to gain traction. It's exactly this behavior that Standard Oil was dissolved over.