The FTC filed a complaint against Qualcomm Tuesday, alleging the company maintained a monopoly in baseband processors used in cellphones and other products. Commissioners voted 2-1 to file the complaint with U.S. District Court in San Jose. Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen dissented, saying in a separate statement the "enforcement action based on a flawed legal theory ... that lacks economic and evidentiary support, that was brought on the eve of a new presidential administration, and that, by its mere issuance, will undermine U.S. intellectual property rights in Asia and worldwide. These extreme circumstances compel me to voice my objections." The redacted complaint said that "Qualcomm has engaged in exclusionary conduct that taxes its competitors' baseband processor sales, reduces competitors' ability and incentive to innovate, and raises prices paid by consumers for cell phones and tablets." In a news release, the agency, which said the company violated the FTC Act, also alleged Qualcomm received "elevated royalties and other license terms for its standard-essential patents that manufacturers would otherwise reject" by threatening to disrupt the baseband processor supply. Plus, it precluded Apple from getting processors from Qualcomm competitors from 2011 to 2016, the agency said. The commission said it's asking the court to order the company to cease its anticompetitive conduct. Qualcomm responded to us that "the portrayal of facts offered by the FTC as the basis for the agency’s case is significantly flawed. In particular, Qualcomm has never withheld or threatened to withhold chip supply in order to obtain agreement to unfair or unreasonable licensing terms. The FTC’s allegation to the contrary -- the central thesis of the complaint -- is wrong.”
The FTC filed a complaint against Qualcomm Tuesday, alleging the company maintained a monopoly in baseband processors used in cellphones and other products. Commissioners voted 2-1 to file the complaint with U.S. District Court in San Jose. Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen dissented, saying in a separate statement the "enforcement action based on a flawed legal theory ... that lacks economic and evidentiary support, that was brought on the eve of a new presidential administration, and that, by its mere issuance, will undermine U.S. intellectual property rights in Asia and worldwide. These extreme circumstances compel me to voice my objections." The redacted complaint said that "Qualcomm has engaged in exclusionary conduct that taxes its competitors' baseband processor sales, reduces competitors' ability and incentive to innovate, and raises prices paid by consumers for cell phones and tablets." In a news release, the agency, which said the company violated the FTC Act, also alleged Qualcomm received "elevated royalties and other license terms for its standard-essential patents that manufacturers would otherwise reject" by threatening to disrupt the baseband processor supply. Plus, it precluded Apple from getting processors from Qualcomm competitors from 2011 to 2016, the agency said. The commission said it's asking the court to order the company to cease its anticompetitive conduct. Qualcomm responded to us that "the portrayal of facts offered by the FTC as the basis for the agency’s case is significantly flawed. In particular, Qualcomm has never withheld or threatened to withhold chip supply in order to obtain agreement to unfair or unreasonable licensing terms. The FTC’s allegation to the contrary -- the central thesis of the complaint -- is wrong.”
The FTC filed a complaint against Qualcomm Tuesday, alleging the company maintained a monopoly in baseband processors used in cellphones and other products. Commissioners voted 2-1 to file the complaint with U.S. District Court in San Jose. Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen dissented, saying in a separate statement the "enforcement action based on a flawed legal theory ... that lacks economic and evidentiary support, that was brought on the eve of a new presidential administration, and that, by its mere issuance, will undermine U.S. intellectual property rights in Asia and worldwide. These extreme circumstances compel me to voice my objections." The redacted complaint said that "Qualcomm has engaged in exclusionary conduct that taxes its competitors' baseband processor sales, reduces competitors' ability and incentive to innovate, and raises prices paid by consumers for cell phones and tablets." In a news release, the agency, which said the company violated the FTC Act, also alleged Qualcomm received "elevated royalties and other license terms for its standard-essential patents that manufacturers would otherwise reject" by threatening to disrupt the baseband processor supply. Plus, it precluded Apple from getting processors from Qualcomm competitors from 2011 to 2016, the agency said. The commission said it's asking the court to order the company to cease its anticompetitive conduct. Qualcomm responded to us that "the portrayal of facts offered by the FTC as the basis for the agency’s case is significantly flawed. In particular, Qualcomm has never withheld or threatened to withhold chip supply in order to obtain agreement to unfair or unreasonable licensing terms. The FTC’s allegation to the contrary -- the central thesis of the complaint -- is wrong.”
Senior Trump transition staff approved an FCC landing team action plan for the agency Friday, and everything "is moving forward," an informed person told us. "It’s what you’d expect from a Republican administration: it’s consistent with the views of [Commissioner Ajit] Pai and [Commissioner Michael] O’Rielly, the Republican platform, and what [President-elect Donald] Trump and [Vice President-elect Mike] Pence have been saying. There’s an emphasis on the use of markets and letting customers and businesses make choices."
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is proposing to overhaul its regulations on importation and interstate movements of plant pests. The agency’s proposed rule (here) would codify and clarify existing permitting procedures, and create new lists of exempt plant pests and biological control organisms that APHIS determines present no risk to plants and plant products. The proposed rule would also set new packaging requirements for plant pests, biological control agents and soil, and revise APHIS’s regulations on importation of soil, stone and quarry products. Comments on the proposal are due March 20.
Senior Trump transition staff approved an FCC landing team action plan for the agency Friday, and everything "is moving forward," an informed person told us. "It’s what you’d expect from a Republican administration: it’s consistent with the views of [Commissioner Ajit] Pai and [Commissioner Michael] O’Rielly, the Republican platform, and what [President-elect Donald] Trump and [Vice President-elect Mike] Pence have been saying. There’s an emphasis on the use of markets and letting customers and businesses make choices."
Lenz v. Universal -- popularly known as the “dancing baby” case -- is “too idiosyncratic” to “produce a broadly useful” Supreme Court decision on the fair use doctrine, said Tom Sydnor of the American Enterprise Institute's Center for Internet, Communications and Technology in a Friday blog post. The court is considering whether to grant twin petitions for review of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Lenz. The 9th Circuit ruled in 2015 that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification” (see 1509140070). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Universal Music Group separately petitioned the high court for a writ of certiorari to review the 9th Circuit’s ruling. The top court is awaiting an opinion from the U.S. Solicitor General's office (see 1611010024). Sydnor said a broad Supreme Court decision on fair use needs to decide whether the 2nd Circuit correctly decided the DMCA’s Section 512 safe harbors protect online service providers from civil copyright infringement lawsuits “that could still be punished as criminal racketeering enterprises under existing law.” The Supreme Court would also need to consider whether it’s “time to retract the judge-made ‘transformative-use’ component of statutory fair-use analysis that has become so confusing that the federal judge who created it has claimed that ‘transformative’ uses of works are those in which works are not ‘transformed,’” Sydnor wrote: Lenz “doesn’t raise either of those issues clearly enough to seem worthy of Supreme Court review.” The case involves a mother who uploaded to YouTube a video of her toddler dancing to a snippet of Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy."
Lenz v. Universal -- popularly known as the “dancing baby” case -- is “too idiosyncratic” to “produce a broadly useful” Supreme Court decision on the fair use doctrine, said Tom Sydnor of the American Enterprise Institute's Center for Internet, Communications and Technology in a Friday blog post. The court is considering whether to grant twin petitions for review of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Lenz. The 9th Circuit ruled in 2015 that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification” (see 1509140070). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Universal Music Group separately petitioned the high court for a writ of certiorari to review the 9th Circuit’s ruling. The top court is awaiting an opinion from the U.S. Solicitor General's office (see 1611010024). Sydnor said a broad Supreme Court decision on fair use needs to decide whether the 2nd Circuit correctly decided the DMCA’s Section 512 safe harbors protect online service providers from civil copyright infringement lawsuits “that could still be punished as criminal racketeering enterprises under existing law.” The Supreme Court would also need to consider whether it’s “time to retract the judge-made ‘transformative-use’ component of statutory fair-use analysis that has become so confusing that the federal judge who created it has claimed that ‘transformative’ uses of works are those in which works are not ‘transformed,’” Sydnor wrote: Lenz “doesn’t raise either of those issues clearly enough to seem worthy of Supreme Court review.” The case involves a mother who uploaded to YouTube a video of her toddler dancing to a snippet of Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy."
The Wireless ISP Association sent President-elect Donald Trump a letter Friday asking him to not ignore the problems faced by its members. WISPA told Trump that modernizing the Communications Act “to better reflect 21st Century communications technologies and business realities” is important, as is “eliminating FCC regulations that disproportionately burden small broadband providers with compliance costs and enforcement risks, which chill investment, deter innovation, and raise costs to consumers.” WISPs also need more access to spectrum, their association said. “Given our cost-efficient technologies and business models, as well as our demonstrated ability to bring broadband to neglected markets without subsidies, we respectfully ask you to foster a policy environment that enables us to serve more American consumers in the most cost-effective manner possible.”
The Wireless ISP Association sent President-elect Donald Trump a letter Friday asking him to not ignore the problems faced by its members. WISPA told Trump that modernizing the Communications Act “to better reflect 21st Century communications technologies and business realities” is important, as is “eliminating FCC regulations that disproportionately burden small broadband providers with compliance costs and enforcement risks, which chill investment, deter innovation, and raise costs to consumers.” WISPs also need more access to spectrum, their association said. “Given our cost-efficient technologies and business models, as well as our demonstrated ability to bring broadband to neglected markets without subsidies, we respectfully ask you to foster a policy environment that enables us to serve more American consumers in the most cost-effective manner possible.”