FTC起訴高通不當壟斷手機關鍵晶片

FTC Charges Qualcomm With Monopolizing Key Semiconductor Device Used in Cell Phones (FTC.gov, January 17, 2017)

FTC Complaint v. Qualcomm (redacted) (FTC.gov. January 17, 2017)


美國聯邦貿易委員會於2017年1月17日在北加州聯邦地院起訴高通，認為其違反聯邦貿易委員會法 (Federal Trade Commission Act) 第5條。以下快速整理一些重點。

所以到目前為止，中國日本韓國美國歐盟的反壟斷機構，通通都對高通的專利授權與商業行為有所行動了。台灣的公平交易委員會你在哪裡？


FTC指控高通的反競爭態樣

主要有三點 (其實是四點，但其中一點被遮掉)：(1) 如果不簽專利授權合約就不賣晶片、(2) 拒絕授權工業標準專利給兢爭者、(3) 跟蘋果簽訂獨家合約。其中最後一點特別值得注意。

• Qualcomm withholds its baseband processors unless a customer accepts a license to standard-essential patents on terms preferred by Qualcomm, including elevated royalties that the customer must pay when using competitors’ processors (“no license-no chips”). 

• In some instances, ... (redacted).

• Qualcomm has consistently refused to license its cellular standard-essential patents to its competitors, in violation of Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments.

• Qualcomm entered into exclusive dealing arrangements with Apple Inc., a particularly important cell phone manufacturer. 

高通競爭對手的狀況

簡單來講就是都很慘。包括聯發科、Intel、三星、華為等等，全都被搞到沒有辦法跟高通競爭：

45. Qualcomm has faced limited competition for the supply of premium LTE processors. Other manufacturers have offered baseband processors that support LTE functionality, but have offered only limited competition to Qualcomm in premium offerings. MediaTek, for instance, has lagged behind Qualcomm in LTE baseband processor sales, and has not supplied premium LTE processors for flagship handsets. Intel has had even more limited LTE baseband processor sales and achieved modest success in premium LTE baseband processor supply only recently, when it began to supply a portion of Apple’s baseband processor requirements for the iPhone 7. Samsung and Huawei have recently self-supplied some premium LTE baseband processors for Samsung and Huawei handsets, respectively, but this has not provided Qualcomm with meaningful competition in the merchant market. 

高通拒絕將工業標準專利授權給競爭對手

Intel跟三星 (還有一家被遮掉，不知道是誰...) 都曾經向高通要過授權被拒。

112. In breach of its FRAND commitments, at odds with its recognition that other industry participants “will require” a license to its FRAND-encumbered SEPs, and in tension with its practice of securing patent licenses for the benefit of its own customers, Qualcomm has consistently refused to license its SEPs to competing suppliers of baseband processors. Several of Qualcomm’s former and current competitors, including Intel, (redacted) , and Samsung, have sought SEP licenses from Qualcomm. In each instance, Qualcomm refused to grant a SEP license.

這邊沒提到聯發科 (應該不是被遮掉了吧)。聯發科曾經在2009年跟高通簽過 "專利協議"，這個協議後來還曾經修改過。只是依雙方後來的聯合新聞稿，這個專利協議不是專利授權協議。那麼這個專利協議究竟是甚麼，其效果為何，對聯發科長期在市場上競爭有無幫助，就很值得探討了。

高通跟蘋果的秘密約定

這很有趣。

首先，蘋果的供應商 (雖然是極機密，但...全世界都知道是誰吧) 若就蘋果的產品，支付的權利金超出某個上限，高通會提供回扣給蘋果。這件事情遠在2007年雙方就約定好了。

119. Apple has negotiated with Qualcomm in an effort to reduce the royalty burden that Apple bears through its contract manufacturers. As a result of these negotiations, Apple entered into agreements with Qualcomm in 2007, 2011, and 2013.

120. Under a 2007 agreement, Qualcomm agreed to rebate to Apple royalties that Qualcomm received from Apple’s contract manufacturers in excess of a specified per-handset cap. Qualcomm’s payment obligations were conditioned upon, among other things, Apple not selling or licensing a handset implementing the WiMax standard, a prospective fourth-generation cellular standard championed by Intel and opposed by Qualcomm.

後來在2011年，高通又付了一大筆錢給蘋果，條件是蘋果要獨家採用高通的晶片。這錢陸續從2011年付到2016年。

121. Qualcomm and Apple entered into additional agreements in 2011 and 2013. Under these agreements, Qualcomm provided Apple large lump sum payments that constituted partial relief from Qualcomm royalties. Qualcomm conditioned this relief on Apple’s exclusive use of Qualcomm baseband processors in new iPhone and iPad models.

122. Under Qualcomm’s 2011 agreement with Apple, Qualcomm agreed to make substantial incentive payments from 2011 through 2016, explicitly conditioned upon Apple using Qualcomm baseband processors exclusively in all new iPhone and iPad models. If, during this period, Apple launched a new handset with a non-Qualcomm baseband processor, it would forfeit all future payments and, depending on when a handset launched, could be required to refund past payments.

2013年高通跟蘋果又簽了一份合約，除了高通繼續給回扣，以及繼續付錢給蘋果之外，蘋果還承諾不會自己直接，或引導他人，對高通提出其並未提供FRAND (Fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory，公平合理非歧視) 授權之訴。

123. Qualcomm’s 2013 agreements with Apple modified and extended the exclusivity arrangement set forth in the companies’ 2011 agreement. Under the 2013 agreements, Qualcomm agreed to rebate to Apple royalties that Qualcomm collected from Apple’s contract manufacturers in excess of modified per-handset caps. Qualcomm’s obligation to make these rebate payments was subject to, among other terms, a new condition—that Apple neither initiate nor induce others to initiate litigation claiming that Qualcomm had failed to offer a license on FRAND terms. Qualcomm also agreed to make substantial incentive payments in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, explicitly conditioned on Apple sourcing baseband processors for new iPad and iPhone models exclusively from Qualcomm. If, during this period, Apple launched a new handset with a non-Qualcomm baseband processor, it would forfeit all future incentive payments and, depending on when a handset launched, could be required to refund past incentive payments.

* * *

首先，蘋果跟高通真的是把工業標準專利授權跟商業策略完全綁在一起，玩的太成功了。就算FTC這個訴訟打贏，FTC在訴狀中要的救濟，也只是讓高通以後不能再進行類似行為而已。蘋果跟高通這些協議已經玩了十年，商業上早就已經贏了。

其次，蘋果第一支iPhone就是20017年上市。在上市前，蘋果就想到專利授權這個問題了。這點也值得大家思考。台灣廠商的新產品在上市前，有調查過相關的工業標準權利金的成本結構，並且主動去跟專利權人談，以期建構自身競爭優勢的，嗯......有的話請告訴我。

再者，用兩份不同合約分別處理專利授權跟料件供應，設計成料件供應合約取代專利授權合約中的付款條件，並且涉及多方交易，其實並非罕見，只是平常沒事不會公開而已。相關的策略值得台灣廠商思考。

最後，高通還有跟那些廠商有類似的協議嗎？近年改採高通晶片的，不只蘋果喔。看一下這則新聞，再想一想吧。(來人啊，把這份訴狀傳給中國廠商看看吧。)