Topic: Lawsuits
Facebook Loses $500 Million Virtual Reality Headset Verdict – Bloomberg (Feb 1, 2017)
I’ll have more on Facebook earnings shortly, and this is bound to come up, but this is a big loss for Facebook financially as well as embarrassing for some key figures from Mark Zuckerberg through the Oculus employees who were directly impacted in this verdict. Facebook will no doubt appeal, so this isn’t settled yet, and it only adds the equivalent of a quarter of the original purchase price to the $2 billion Facebook spent on Oculus, but it’s not chump change. Given how little revenue Oculus is likely to generate in the near term, this will put the acquisition further into the red for the time being. There are also eery echoes here of the Winkelvoss case against Zuckerberg himself, which of course was settled before a verdict like this was reached. Certainly not how Facebook would want to go into what looks at first glance like a really solid set of earnings.
via Bloomberg
Tesla sues ex-Autopilot director for taking proprietary info, poaching employees – TechCrunch (Jan 26, 2017)
Things are getting nasty between Tesla and one of its prominent former employees, Sterling Anderson, who used to run its Autopilot program. The lawsuit alleges that Anderson both took proprietary data from Tesla when he left and that he tried to poach additional Tesla employees to work on his new venture with Chris Urmson, formerly of Google’s autonomous driving unit. This lawsuit just highlights how competitive the space has become, and how eagerly many different companies including established carmakers, smaller carmakers like Tesla, big tech companies like Apple and Google (and Uber), and startups like Anderson and Urmson’s new venture Aurora are pursuing it. We’re going to see a lot of ugliness, and certainly plenty more hiring and poaching between these various companies, over the coming years.
via TechCrunch
Apple sues Qualcomm in Beijing seeking 1 billion yuan – Reuters (Jan 25, 2017)
The Apple-Qualcomm saga continues. Qualcomm was investigated by the Chinese authorities a couple of years back and although that investigation ended in 2015, Apple appears to be using it in much the same way as it is using the FTC’s action against Qualcomm in the US, as a basis for its own legal action. It’s still almost impossible for any outsider to know how much merit there is on each side of this argument, let alone how individual court systems might ultimately rule, but this fight just keeps getting uglier.
via Reuters
The Qualcomm ‘Tax’ Rebellion – Bloomberg Gadfly (Jan 24, 2017)
This is a great explanation of exactly what’s going on in the lawsuit between Apple and Qualcomm and the various investigations of Qualcomm by competition authorities in several jurisdictions. At root is the fact that Qualcomm charges a licensing fee based on the total cost of devices, not just on the parts Qualcomm makes, a model that’s increasingly out of whack with where the value is in smartphones. It really is starting to feel like the industry has reached a tipping point at which it will no longer put up with this licensing model, and if things don’t go Qualcomm’s way, that will be extremely damaging to its business. Meanwhile, it keeps selling chips to Apple to use in phones, because to stop would be incredibly damaging too.
via Bloomberg Gadfly
Qualcomm Comments on Apple Complaint – Qualcomm (Jan 21, 2017)
This is Qualcomm’s official statement on Apple’s lawsuit filed yesterday in San Diego, and it predictably pushes back on the key points in Apple’s filing. It argues that Apple has been the instigator of the various investigations of alleged anticompetitive behavior by Qualcomm in various jurisdictions, and that Apple has been misleading in its statements to the various authorities involved. Unlike some patent disputes, many of which are ultimately settled out of court, this one looks set to go the distance, given the sheer acrimony involved and the fact that this goes beyond a mere dispute over royalties. Combined with the FTC and Korean case, Qualcomm has plenty on its hands here.
via Qualcomm Comments on Apple Complaint | Qualcomm
Apple Sues Qualcomm Over Patent Royalties in Antitrust Case – Bloomberg (Jan 20, 2017)
First we had the FTC taking action against Qualcomm, and now Apple is joining the fray, and I’d argue that’s not at all coincidental. Apple would obviously dearly love to pay Qualcomm less money for licensing and chips, and the FTC has given it the perfect ammunition by highlighting alleged wrongdoing on Qualcomm’s part. Intriguingly, it appears that Qualcomm has been withholding rebates due to Apple in retaliation for Apple assisting the South Korean authorities with their recent investigations into anticompetitive practices by Qualcomm. But Apple is also going a lot further, by making some of the same arguments put forth in the FTC case about overcharging for essential FRAND patents. This is going to get ugly. I’m seeing – both in this Bloomberg piece and elsewhere – suggestions that this lawsuit stems from high pressure Apple feels around iPhone growth and margins, but that’s nonsense – Apple will always try to get the best margins possible, and when it’s given a way to apply pressure to a supplier, it’ll do so. The FTC action provided just such a way, so that’s the proximate cause here, not any sort of crunch on the Apple side.
via Apple Sues Qualcomm Over Patent Royalties in Antitrust Case – Bloomberg
Uber to Pay $20 Million to Settle FTC Charges on Earnings Claims for Drivers – WSJ (Jan 19, 2017)
Uber has often been willing to flout regulation in order to stake a foothold in a market, at which point it typically turns its customers into advocates and makes arguments about the contribution it’s making to the local economy in a bid to win formal approval from local authorities. This case brought by the FTC alleged that Uber had exaggerated those benefits significantly – it claimed NYC Uber drivers earned a median income of over $90,000, but the FTC found that under 10% of drivers earned that much, for example. Because Uber settled the case without admitting formal wrongdoing, there is no legal confirmation here that Uber lied, but that almost doesn’t matter. To the extent that Uber gets a reputation (accurate or otherwise) for lying about its economic benefits, its whole “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” strategy starts to break down.
via Uber to Pay $20 Million to Settle FTC Charges on Earnings Claims for Drivers – WSJ
FTC Charges Qualcomm With Monopolizing Key Semiconductor Device Used in Cell Phones – Federal Trade Commission (Jan 17, 2017)
The link below is to the FTC’s official statement on this action. This isn’t the first time Qualcomm has been accused by authorities of anticompetitive practices, but it’s been possible to dismiss the Chinese action as the action of a country trying to keep a foreign competitor in check. That obviously isn’t the case here, with the FTC taking aim at a home-grown company. The allegations are serious – that Qualcomm illegally ties licensing and chip purchases, that it refuses to license so-called FRAND patents on reasonable terms to competitors, and that it forced Apple into an exclusive arrangement that squeezed out competitors. This won’t be easily dismissed, and the stock price took a quick tumble by about 4% late in the session, though it’s relatively stable after hours so far. Qualcomm has dominated portions of its key markets, but if some of the strategies it’s used to achieve that dominance are undone by regulators, things might open up in interesting ways to competitors.
U.S. appeals court revives antitrust lawsuit against Apple – Reuters (Jan 12, 2017)
This has always struck me as one of the more implausible legal challenges to Apple, and it fended off the first round through a technicality. Now, however, a higher court has overruled the technical objection and the case can proceed on its merits. I would still think it was a long shot that Apple could be successfully sued for monopolizing app storefronts for its own devices, but you never know. One more Apple lawsuit to keep an eye on.
via U.S. appeals court revives antitrust lawsuit against Apple | Reuters
Jawbone says Fitbit is no longer seeking to block sales of its products – Recode (Dec 24, 2016)
Jawbone was one of the pioneers in the wearables space, but seems to be in free-fall at this point – it’s worth noting that the reason Fitbit is ending its opposition to Jawbone’s device sales is that Jawbone seems to be in so much trouble. It’s a cautionary tale that even the early big names in a new space don’t always do well over the long term – Pebble is another obvious example in the same space.
via Jawbone says Fitbit is no longer seeking to block sales of its products – Recode