Why do all mobile phone manufacturers dare not offend Qualcomm, only Huawei dare not?

On February 10, the National Development and Reform Commission issued the biggest fine in China's anti-monopoly history-Qualcomm was fined 6.088 billion yuan for monopolistic behavior and was ordered to rectify. This fine not only rewrote the history of China's anti-monopoly, but also took the lead in changing the patent charging model that has been implemented in Qualcomm for more than 20 years and is popular all over the world. Why did the global Internet chip giant fine Qualcomm 6 billion in China when the anti-monopoly investigation in western countries was slow? 50% of the revenue comes from the China market. Why is Qualcomm unwilling to pay a fine of 6.088 billion yuan? Why is it missing? 50% of the revenue comes from the China market. Qualcomm is unwilling to establish July 1985. Qualcomm is an American radio communication technology research and development company. As the world's largest patent licensing company and the largest wireless communication chip manufacturer, almost all mobile phone manufacturers cannot do without the authorization of this company. Including WCDMA, CDMA, TD-SCDMA, LTE and other technical specifications, Qualcomm's basic patents are unavoidable. According to the data, in 20 13, Qualcomm earned $24.8 billion in global revenue through chip sales and licensing fees, nearly half of which came from China. It can be said that China has become one of the largest and most important markets for Qualcomm in the world. In view of this, the anti-monopoly department of China not only imposed a huge fine on Qualcomm, but also significantly changed its patent charging model. Deng Songzhi, a lawyer of Dacheng Law Firm who has long been concerned about antitrust issues, believes that the enforcement of Qualcomm by China's antitrust authorities is a landmark event in the global antitrust field. China can make a major breakthrough in the case of Qualcomm, firstly because China has become the largest wireless communication market in the world. For example, 50% of Qualcomm's income comes from the China market, so China's anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies have a greater say. Expert opinion: the fine of 6.088 billion yuan is still less than the fine. Although he was fined nearly $654.38 billion, Qualcomm was secretly pleased with the huge market in China. Qualcomm's President Derek Aberle said he was glad that the investigation was over. For the fine of 6.088 billion yuan, Xiang Ligang, an independent telecom analyst and CEO of Feixiang.com, thinks that the penalty is relatively light. In 2009, the Korea Fair Trade Commission fined Qualcomm $208.7 million for abusing its market monopoly position. "According to the fine in Korea at that time, a fiscal year accounted for about 65,438+00% of Qualcomm's sales in Korea. The National Development and Reform Commission fined 10% or less. " Xiang Ligang pointed out that Qualcomm's revenue in the fiscal year ending September 29th, 200013 was about US$ 25 billion, half of which came from the China market. 10% is10.25 billion USD, equivalent to about 7.8 billion yuan. The reporter found that after the announcement of the anti-monopoly punishment results in Qualcomm, the share price of Qualcomm rose instead of falling. Many industry analysts believe that this also shows from a level that investors believe that Qualcomm is exchanging fines for the market. Behind the investigation, Qualcomm tried to exert internal and external pressure while giving up the China market. The reporter learned that Qualcomm was unwilling to investigate the anti-monopoly department in China, and exerted great internal and external pressure. Xu, director of the Price Supervision, Inspection and Anti-monopoly Bureau of the National Development and Reform Commission, revealed that during the anti-monopoly investigation that lasted for more than a year, Qualcomm sent teams to the National Development and Reform Commission for many times to make inquiries, make statements and submit relevant materials. However, it is understood that Qualcomm, while cooperating with the investigation, exerted pressure on the investigation by the anti-monopoly department of China at different levels. At the same time, Qualcomm also used public opinion to question the compliance and rationality of the anti-monopoly investigation, and hired experts, including China scholars, to publish reports and make favorable comments. Zhang Xinzhu, a researcher of China Academy of Social Sciences and a former member of the Expert Advisory Group of the State Council Anti-monopoly Committee, was employed by Qualcomm to provide evidence for him and received high remuneration. He was fired by the expert group before. How to punish other countries? Independent research and development can be based on the market. How to punish other countries? In fact, only in the past 10 years, Qualcomm has been faced with antitrust prosecutions and investigations in major global markets, including the United States. In 2005, six global companies, including Ericsson, Panasonic, Nokia, NEC, Broadcom and Texas Instruments, sued the EU for "Qualcomm's unfair competition behavior, which violated the relevant provisions of the EU competition law". In 2007, the European Commission formally conducted an anti-monopoly investigation on Qualcomm. In the end, Qualcomm was forced to reach a settlement with these six companies, and drastically reduced their patent fees in exchange for their withdrawal from the EU. In 2005, Broadcom sued Qualcomm for abusing its commercial position in the United States and violating the American antitrust law. The lawsuit lasted for four years, and Qualcomm lost in April 2009, and finally agreed to pay Broadcom $8,965,438+0,000 within four years to reach a settlement. In South Korea, in 2006, the Korea Fair Trade Commission received complaints from two American companies and two Korean companies. On June 5438+ 10, 2007, the Commission began an official investigation on Qualcomm. In July 2009, Qualcomm was fined $208.7 million by the Korea Fair Trade Commission for abusing its market monopoly position. Warning: Only independent research and development can gain a foothold in the market. For a long time, China's mobile phone manufacturers have a "love-hate relationship" with Qualcomm. Because, a little knowledgeable consumers will always look at them differently when they hear that their mobile phones are equipped with Qualcomm chips. It costs a lot to acquire chips. "The punishment of Qualcomm by the National Development and Reform Commission will benefit China mobile phone manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips." Xiang Ligang pointed out that the most prominent point is that the decline in patent licensing fees will dilute the cost burden of mobile phone manufacturers to a certain extent, which is conducive to enhancing the competitiveness of domestic enterprises. From an indirect point of view, consumers may also enjoy lower mobile phone prices. "Of course, domestic manufacturers can't rely too much on such punishment to protect their rights and interests, nor can they be content with the status quo because of the lack of licensing fees and not do independent research and development." A smart phone with a price of 2,000 yuan can save 35 yuan, which will change the competitive pattern of the mobile phone industry in China. 2,000 yuan smart phone can save 35 yuan. This time, Qualcomm accepted the anti-monopoly investigation of the National Development and Reform Commission, and also changed the standard of patent authorization. How much influence will the results of anti-monopoly investigation in Qualcomm have on the purchase of new mobile phones by ordinary mobile phone users? According to insiders, Qualcomm is currently the largest mobile chip provider in the world, and mobile phones using signals from China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom all involve chips and patents in Qualcomm. In the fiscal year ending from 2065438 to September 28th, 2004, about half of Qualcomm's global revenue of $26.5 billion came from China, while most of Qualcomm's profits came from the high-profit patent fees of patent licensing departments. Every mobile phone purchased by consumers includes two parts related to Qualcomm: the hardware cost of communication chip; Patent license fee. Take a smart phone of about 2,000 yuan as an example, in which the price of Qualcomm chip is about 23 dollars (about 140 yuan), and then pay 5% of the price of the whole machine (about 100 yuan), and the two items add up to about 240 yuan. After the rectification, the price of Qualcomm chip in each mobile phone remains unchanged, while the patent licensing fee is reduced to 5% on the basis of 65% of the whole machine price. After the rectification, the price of smart phones is about 2,000 yuan, of which the patent licensing fee in Qualcomm is reduced to 65 yuan, which is less than that in 35 yuan. On 10, an insider of a domestic mobile phone manufacturer said that the cost of 35 yuan per mobile phone seems small, but it is 1.75% of that of a smart phone with a price of about 2,000 yuan. For domestic mobile phone brands with meager profits, every little makes a mickle, which adds up to a lot of expenses. The reporter calculated that if a domestic mobile phone manufacturer sells100000 smart phones with Qualcomm chips in 20 15 years, the price of a single mobile phone will be 2000 yuan, and due to the adjustment of the patent licensing fee standard in Qualcomm, it will get an additional net profit of 350 million yuan. The analysis that will change the competition pattern of the mobile phone industry in China points out that the rectification measures will have a far-reaching impact on the mobile phone industry in China. Because the number of patents owned by mobile phone manufacturers in China is different, or even the gap is huge, Qualcomm's measures of "no bundling and no compulsory cross-licensing" will change the competitive pattern of the mobile phone industry in China. Data show that by the end of 20 14, 1 1, Huawei has obtained nearly 30,000 patents. By the end of 20 13, ZTE had more than 52,000 patents worldwide, and the cumulative number of patents granted exceeded16,000. In this picture, Xiaomi has only 10 inventions, and OPPO has 103 inventions. Now, because of the change of Qualcomm's "compulsory cross-licensing" strategy, Huawei, ZTE, Xiaomi and other manufacturers have a choice. This will greatly ease the pressure they face, because they no longer need to worry about the lion's mouth, thus promoting the negotiation to be reached faster, and will not have much impact on the product price. Anti-monopoly in China has blossomed in an all-round way. Next, it refers to the observation of administrative monopoly. The next step is that, in the eyes of professionals, the amount of punishment imposed on Qualcomm by law enforcement agencies has not only reached a new high, but also touched the frontier areas of anti-monopoly such as intellectual property rights and patent licensing. From liquor and milk powder to high-tech patent authorization, "full bloom" means that China's anti-monopoly law enforcement has entered a normal stage. In the past 20 14, anti-monopoly investigations in China were intensive. In May, the National Development and Reform Commission issued a fine of190,000 yuan to many glasses manufacturers such as Essilor and Doctor Li Lomb. In July, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce conducted an anti-monopoly surprise inspection on Microsoft's four business premises in China. These anti-monopoly cases have the following characteristics: First, the amount of fines has hit record highs. 20 13 Six milk powder enterprises, including Guangdong Synbiotics, were fined 670 million yuan. In 20 14 years, Sumitomo and other 12 parts enterprises were fined 124 billion yuan. In 20 15, this record was refreshed to 6.088 billion yuan. Second, anti-monopoly investigation involves a wide range of industries. Including LCD panels, liquor, milk powder, gold ornaments, glasses, cars and other fields, are closely related to people's lives, "foreign tigers" and "local tigers" were beaten together. Third, the "technical content" of anti-monopoly law enforcement has been continuously improved. "The anti-monopoly cases such as liquor and milk powder investigated before belong to the entity transaction level, and it is relatively easy to investigate. Qualcomm involves intellectual property rights, patent licensing and other frontier areas of anti-monopoly, which requires high professionalism. It can be said that the investigation of Qualcomm's monopoly case marks that China's anti-monopoly law enforcement ability has improved to a higher level. " Shi Jianzhong pointed out. Although the anti-monopoly in China has entered the normalization stage, the anti-monopoly law has only been implemented for more than six years, and there are still many problems to be solved. The first is to break the administrative monopoly. With the comprehensive deepening of reform, domestic people's attention to monopoly and administrative monopoly in oil, telecommunications, electric power and other industries continues to heat up. In September last year, the National Development and Reform Commission conducted an anti-monopoly investigation on Hebei province's behavior of charging half the road and bridge fees for buses in this province and charging the full price for foreign cars, which has sent a clear signal to break the administrative monopoly. Followed by the follow-up judicial trial. In the anti-monopoly practice, in addition to the administrative enforcement of anti-monopoly institutions such as the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the court's trial of anti-monopoly civil litigation also promoted the establishment of anti-monopoly rules. For example, Qihoo v. Tencent's monopoly case tried by the Supreme Court and Huawei v. IDC's patent standard monopoly case tried by the Guangdong High Court have aroused widespread concern in society. "As far as Qualcomm is concerned, the direct victims are domestic mobile phone manufacturers, but few companies dare to come forward and file a civil lawsuit. This may be because enterprises are worried that if they are weak, they will offend Qualcomm, but they will incur greater losses. With the deepening of anti-monopoly, domestic enterprises need to strengthen their awareness of rights protection. " Hao Junbo, an anti-monopoly lawyer, said. Shi Jianzhong told reporters that in anti-monopoly practice, administrative law enforcement and judicial trial should be organically combined. "Judicial trials are relatively weak at present, which is related to the awareness of rights protection of enterprises and the whole environment. For example, the court should further reduce the difficulty of filing anti-monopoly cases, reduce the burden of proof of the plaintiff, and create a good environment for anti-monopoly litigation. "