Narrative: Qualcomm is Anticompetitive
Each narrative page (like this) has a page describing and evaluating the narrative, followed by all the posts on the site tagged with that narrative. Scroll down beyond the introduction to see the posts.
Narrative: Qualcomm is Anticompetitive (Jan 28, 2017)
This content is restricted to paid subscribers to the Tech Narratives service. You can sign up on this page for a 30-day free trial, which will give you access to all the content on the site including the daily comments, narrative essays, subscriber forums, and other restricted features. If you’re already a subscriber, you can sign in using the link below.
If you’re already a member, you can sign in here.
Apple Adds New Claims to Qualcomm Lawsuit (Jun 20, 2017)
Apple Hires Senior Qualcomm Engineer as Wireless SoC Lead (May 29, 2017)
In commenting on Qualcomm’s recent earnings report, I mentioned that if Apple and its suppliers continued to hold back royalty payments as part of their dispute, Qualcomm would be affected more severely in future quarters than in Q1, and that has now proven to be the case. In Qualcomm’s original guidance for this quarter, it had said that its guidance range didn’t include a scenario where it received no payments at all from these companies, but it now appears that’s the scenario that’s playing out. Apple has said it won’t make any payments until the dispute is resolved and new royalty rates set, which is a great way to put pressure on Qualcomm to either settle quickly or at least move the court case along swiftly, but means Qualcomm will be severely impacted in the meantime. It’ll be very interesting to hear Apple’s commentary on all this on its earnings call next Tuesday because it will have to set aside at least some of the amounts due as a contingency, and I’m curious to see how that affects its reported costs and margins.
Qualcomm has just reported its earnings for the March quarter, and one of the most interesting aspects is its commentary on its dispute with Apple. It says that Apple’s suppliers reported but did not pay around $1 billion in royalties in the quarter, which exactly offset the $1 billion Qualcomm is refusing to pay Apple under the Cooperation Agreement the two companies have, and which Qualcomm says Apple breached. Importantly, that Agreement ended in December, so there are no more payments to be withheld, which means if Apple suppliers continue to withhold royalty payments, they’d affect Qualcomm financially going forward in a way they didn’t this past quarter. As such, it’s given a wider EPS guidance range (25 cents) than usual (it was 10 cents in the last two quarters, for example) because of the uncertainty over these royalty payments (the math here is tricky but I reckon that’s about a $400m range in net income terms). Beyond the Apple dispute, the results are a little tricky this quarter because on paper they look terrible, with revenues and profits way down over the same quarter last year. But that’s partly because Qualcomm had to reduce from its GAAP revenues the nearly one billion dollars it’s due to pay BlackBerry as a result of arbitration between the two companies. The actual results are much better, in keeping with recent trends at Qualcomm, lawsuits aside.
Qualcomm Files Response to Apple Lawsuit (Apr 11, 2017)
Qualcomm has now officially filed a response to Apple’s lawsuit over anticompetitive practices and breach of contract, including both answers to the specific allegations in the suit and a number of counter-claims. One of the main counterclaims is that, by “inducing” regulators to look into Qualcomm, Apple breached the companies’ “Cooperation agreement” and therefore was no longer entitled to certain payments it had received previously. The document further alleges that Apple made many false statements in the course of both its own suit and the discussions it had with regulators, and tried to insert itself into relationships between Qualcomm and other Apple suppliers. Perhaps most interestingly, Qualcomm brings to light something which was covered in the press at the time but didn’t get much attention: the allegation that Apple deliberately hamstrung the Qualcomm chips in the iPhone 7 such that performance would be consistent with those models that had Intel modems, and then prevented Qualcomm from talking about it. On the face of it, that allegation has nothing to do with the broader allegations, but it’s an area where Apple’s public reputation could be vulnerable, and I’m guessing it’s been included in the suit to garner more attention than Qualcomm would get through focusing on the patent and other issues alone.