Posts Tagged: "wall street journal"

On November 25, former Director of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that chastised the Department of Energy for filing an amicus brief on behalf of Qualcomm in a case that can only be properly described as the ongoing persecution of Qualcomm at the hands of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). What Chertoff fails to state, however, is that not only has the Department of Energy come out in support of Qualcomm, but so too has the Department of Justice, as well as many others, including former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel.  Chertoff also conveniently fails to mention the genesis of the Qualcomm case; namely that it was filed by the FTC several days prior to the end of the Obama Administration at the behest of Apple.

Perhaps the report on China’s strategy for eclipsing the U.S. lead in biopharma from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) resonated so strongly with me because of several articles in The Wall Street Journal. Taken together, they present a sobering picture of what we’re up against. The first was a book review of “Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers” by Yan Xuetong, a prominent Chinese professor. Characterized as “a window into Chinese elite thinking about the world; it is as much a political manual as an international-relations text book.”  The thesis is the inevitable rise of China as the world’s dominant power at the expense of the United States.

In a 233-page Order issued yesterday, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of California handed Qualcomm a stinging defeat in the case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging that Qualcomm engaged in unlawful licensing practices. It was just three weeks ago that Apple and Qualcomm entered into a peace treaty. The revelations about Apple’s coordinated efforts to manipulate the licensing market by shrewdly challenging inferior patents to beat down prices should have led to the FTC dropping its pursuit of Qualcomm. It is no secret that Apple has urged regulators all over the world to chase Qualcomm for alleged anticompetitive licensing practices, but it has now come out in federal court proceedings that Apple just didn’t like the rate it agreed to pay Qualcomm and decided to manipulate the marketplace and then use that manipulation to pull the wool over the eyes of regulators, including the FTC, in an attempt to leverage a better deal with Qualcomm.Apple succeeded in achieving peace with Qualcomm, although the company has been badly beaten by Apple in near collusion with regulators all over the world. So why would the FTC continue to persecute Qualcomm given the revelations in the Apple/Qualcomm litigation that demonstrate that Qualcomm did not seek an unreasonably high licensing rate?

Now that Apple and Qualcomm have made peace it would be easy to allow the case and the issues to recede into the background. That is likely what Apple would prefer, and almost certainly why Apple made the decision to settle with Qualcomm rather than proceed with trial. The case presented an existential threat for Qualcomm, which would have required the San Diego tech company to fight as if the company depended on victory–because it did.  What is most shocking is how successful Apple was in its coordinated effort to manipulate the licensing market and effectively extinguish any reasonable notion of a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate (FRAND) in the process. Meanwhile, fabricated licensing rates wholly unrelated to the Qualcomm portfolio were used by Apple to dupe regulators into chasing Qualcomm across the world for committing phantom antitrust violations.

This morning’s edition of the Wall Street Journal carried a front-page article describing how the once mighty and untouchable online-advertising operation at Google has begun to struggle thanks to increased competition. With a disappointing revenue report that shows Google ad revenue slowing, and an inability or refusal to answer questions yesterday on the earnings call, Alphabet stock is currently heading for its worst trading day. Google accounts for over 99.5% of Alphabet revenue, so a slowdown in advertising revenue should be and is alarming. Online advertising revenue is where Google, and therefore Alphabet, derives its revenue.

The Wall Street Journal explains ithat the Silicon Valley culture has long regarded copying as a good thing and necessary for rapid growth, first to market, first mover advantage, network effects, world domination, liquidity for early investors and Founders, etc. What complete and total garbage. When you live in a culture that tolerates and even promotes copying that is, in fact, what you get. When everyone copies everyone that means no one is innovating. Many studies and articles in recent years have highlighted how we have a net loss of startups over the past 30 years and that companies are no longer innovating.

The UN Panel unfortunately squandered its 9-month gestation period. It stuffed into one repository every long-discarded remnant of anti-patent and pro-price-control schemes buried in IP’s historic landfill. Its Report expressly recommended directives to carry out each of them, demonstrating their counterproductive unworkability. After cramming each policy device into a trashcan of unworkable IP stratagems, they waited until the last minute and dumped it on the doorstep of the UN General Assembly. As University of Chicago Economist Tomas Philips concisely explains in this weekend’s WSJ, the UNHLP’s recommendations are nonsensical.

It should be self-evident that not all patent owners are patent trolls, and when you acquire rights it is not an economic cost, yet these absurd propositions are at the foundation of the Bessen/Meurer “study” relied upon by Chambers and Ullman. Shame on anyone who uses the thoroughly discredited, agenda driven, biased conclusions of Bessen and Meurer. Shame on Congress if they are swayed by such snake oil and shiny objects. The Bessen/Meurer conclusions, seriously flawed as they are, shouldn’t be used to destroy the patent system and tilt patent laws toward infringers and away from innovators.