Category: Patented

  • Is Semtech becoming a new Qualcomm?

    Qualcomm has faced multiple lawsuits and regulatory challenges related to its CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) technology and its broader business practices, particularly concerning its licensing model and patent practices. Here are some key reasons and events surrounding these legal issues:

    1. Patent Licensing Practices: Qualcomm has a significant portfolio of patents related to CDMA and other wireless communication technologies. The company licenses these patents to various manufacturers of mobile devices. Critics have argued that Qualcomm’s licensing practices are anti-competitive, as the company often requires device manufacturers to pay royalties on the entire price of the device, not just the components that use Qualcomm’s technology. This has led to allegations of monopolistic behavior.
    2. Antitrust Allegations: Regulatory bodies in various countries, including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the European Commission, have investigated Qualcomm for potential antitrust violations. The FTC filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm in 2017, alleging that the company engaged in anti-competitive practices by using its dominant market position to impose unfair licensing terms and by refusing to license its patents to competitors.
    3. Litigation from Competitors: Companies like Apple and other smartphone manufacturers have also sued Qualcomm, claiming that the company’s licensing practices are unfair and that it has engaged in anti-competitive behavior. For example, Apple accused Qualcomm of charging excessive royalties and of using its patent portfolio to stifle competition.
    4. Settlement and Legal Outcomes: Over the years, Qualcomm has reached settlements in some cases, while other cases have resulted in court rulings that have impacted its business practices. For instance, in 2019, Qualcomm reached a settlement with the FTC, which included changes to its licensing practices.
    5. Global Regulatory Scrutiny: Qualcomm’s practices have drawn scrutiny not only in the U.S. but also in other regions, including Europe and Asia. The European Commission fined Qualcomm for anti-competitive practices related to its chipset sales and licensing agreements.

    Qualcomm’s legal challenges related to its CDMA technology and licensing practices stem from allegations of anti-competitive behavior, monopolistic practices, and disputes with competitors over its patent licensing model. These issues have led to significant legal battles and regulatory scrutiny over the years.

    There is no clear evidence to suggest that Semtech is directly copying Qualcomm’s business practices related to CDMA technology. However, one key point stands out with regards to licensing practices:

    • Qualcomm: Gained a 90% market share of the 3G chipset in 2007 (1) by ignoring it’s FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) commitment to the ETSI and other SDOs by demanding discriminatorily higher (i.e., non-FRAND) royalties from competitors and customers using chipsets not manufactured by Qualcomm. It seems that Qualcomm wants to control the market by selling it’s own chips.
    • Semtech: Does not license its LoRa technology to other companies, is sells the SX12xx chip for use in System-in-Package configurations (SIP) which means that other chip manufactures license the SX12xx chip for use inside their own chip. Examples are ST STM32WL series and Microchip SAM R34/35 series of chips. It seems that Semtech wants to control the market by selling it’s own chips.

    In conclusion, Qualcomm and Semtech seem to have the following in common:

    • They do not want to license their IP to other companies
    • The want to control the the market by monopolizing the supply of chips

    Are we witnessing the rise of a monopoly selling LoRa chips?

    1) https://casetext.com/case/broadcom-v-qualcomm-2

    2) https://ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/18/how-many-times-qualcomm-paid-old-technology/id=83332/

    3) https://community.cadence.com/cadence_blogs_8/b/breakfast-bytes/posts/cdma

  • Why is patented infrastructure a problem?

    Patented infrastructure is a problem because it can limit access, stifle competition, increase costs, reduce interoperability, and create dependence on a single entity, ultimately hindering innovation and progress.

    1. Limited access: When infrastructure is patented, it can limit access to the technology and prevent others from using it, even if they have a legitimate need to do so.
    2. High costs: Patent holders can charge high licensing fees to use their patented technology, which can make it difficult for others to access the infrastructure.
    3. Innovation stifling: Patented infrastructure can stifle innovation by preventing others from building upon or improving the existing technology.
    4. Dependence on a single entity: When infrastructure is patented, it can create a dependence on a single entity, which can be a risk if the entity experiences financial difficulties or changes its business model.
    5. Limited interoperability: Patented infrastructure can limit interoperability with other technologies and systems, making it difficult to integrate with other solutions.
    6. Barriers to entry: Patented infrastructure can create barriers to entry for new companies or individuals who want to enter the market, as they may not be able to access the patented technology.
    7. Inequitable distribution of benefits: Patented infrastructure can lead to an inequitable distribution of benefits, as the patent holder may reap most of the benefits while others may not be able to access the technology.

    In the context of infrastructure, patents can be particularly problematic because they can limit access to essential technologies and create barriers to entry for new companies or individuals. This can lead to a lack of competition, innovation, and progress in the field.

    In contrast, open standards and technologies can promote innovation, competition, and progress by allowing multiple companies and individuals to access and build upon the technology.

  • The problem with LoRa being patented

    The main problem with Semtech’s LoRa technology being patented is the potential for it to create a monopolistic situation and limit competition in the low-power wide-area network (LPWAN) market.

    Here are some of the key issues with the LoRa patent:

    1. Proprietary technology:
      • LoRa is a proprietary technology owned and controlled by Semtech Corporation.
      • This means Semtech has the exclusive rights to the LoRa technology and can dictate the terms and conditions for its use.
    2. Licensing fees and royalties:
      • Companies that want to use LoRa technology in their products or services have to pay licensing fees and royalties to Semtech.
      • This can increase the cost of LoRa-based solutions and make it harder for smaller players to enter the market.
    3. Lack of open standards:
      • LoRa is not an open standard, unlike some other LPWAN technologies like Sigfox or NB-IoT.
      • Open standards allow for more competition, innovation, and interoperability between different vendors and solutions.
    4. Vendor lock-in:
      • The proprietary nature of LoRa can lead to vendor lock-in, where customers become dependent on Semtech and have limited options to switch to alternative technologies.
    5. Potential for abuse of market position:
      • As the sole owner of the LoRa technology, Semtech could potentially abuse its market position by setting high licensing fees, restricting access, or favoring certain partners over others.
    6. Slower adoption and innovation:
      • The proprietary nature of LoRa may slow down the adoption and innovation in the LPWAN market, as companies may be hesitant to invest in a technology with a single point of control.

    To address these concerns, some industry groups and organizations have been advocating for the development of open, royalty-free LPWAN standards that can foster more competition and innovation in the IoT market. This could help to mitigate the drawbacks of Semtech’s patented LoRa technology.

    In the context of IoT, where interoperability and open standards are crucial, the patenting of LoRa is particularly problematic because it is hindering the growth of IoT. Also, experts argue that patents can actually hinder innovation, rather than promote it. They argue that patents can create a “patent thicket” that makes it difficult for others to innovate, as they may need to navigate a complex web of patents and licensing agreements.

    The EU wants to create an IoT platform in which all vendors can make products on equal terms for several reasons:

    1. Promoting competition: By creating an open platform, the EU aims to promote competition among vendors, which can lead to better products, lower prices, and more innovation.
    2. Encouraging innovation: An open platform can encourage innovation by allowing multiple vendors to develop products and services that can interoperate with each other.
    3. Reducing vendor lock-in: By creating an open platform, the EU aims to reduce vendor lock-in, which can limit the ability of customers to switch between vendors or use products from different vendors.
    4. Improving interoperability: An open platform can improve interoperability between different products and services, which can make it easier for customers to use products from different vendors.
    5. Enhancing security: An open platform can enhance security by allowing multiple vendors to develop products and services that can interoperate with each other, which can make it more difficult for hackers to exploit vulnerabilities.
    6. Supporting the development of the IoT ecosystem: By creating an open platform, the EU aims to support the development of the IoT ecosystem, which can lead to the creation of new products, services, and business models.
    7. Reducing dependence on a single vendor: By creating an open platform, the EU aims to reduce dependence on a single vendor, which can make it more difficult for a single vendor to dominate the market and limit competition.

    Overall, the EU’s goal is to create an IoT platform that is open, interoperable, and secure, and that allows multiple vendors to develop products and services on equal terms. This can help to promote competition, innovation, and the development of the IoT ecosystem, while also reducing vendor lock-in and dependence on a single vendor.