Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

@hot

1. How is this evidence? That's like saying since there are no tigers around here, that's evidence that I'm doing a good job at keeping them away

2. I don't know much about WiMax, but it must be pathetic considering Sprint was behind it

Apple does not use any QCOM modem and all the iphone still works and nobody cares about the modem performance anymore, tbh. Leadership of a company can not drop the whole company or all the employees into a battle that, regardless of all the possible outcomes, it will be either a lose or lose-lose outcome

If memory serves, WiMax didn’t need any panning from Qualcomm. Why didn’t VERIZON join Sprint?

OFDM uplink? Seriously?

https://www.quota.com/What-is-the-difference-between-WiMAX-and-LTE

Oh Noes..

The court views things from a legal angle. We engineers see the same from a very different angle. Only angle that matters to the judges decision is legal. This looks bad for the defendant, further evidence of intentional anti trust, anti competitive business tactics.

Qualcomm first to market was good, but then Qualcomm immediately suppressed competition with its business practices, by clearly using its market position to force customers to an all Qualcomm or price penalty decision. Isn't this clear and easy to see even by engineers?

https://www.cnet.com/news/qualcomm-expert-tasneem-chipty-rebuts-ftcs-claims-that-chipmaker-hurt-competitors-intel-samsung-mediatek-huawei/

apple gonna lose. truth will set you free Mav!

The OP is missing two key points in the case:

1) the lack of comparable modems (historically) is EVIDENCE of anti-trust, monopolistic actions. A highly lucrative market with no meaningful competition ??

2) Q PAID Apple (by way of kickbacks) to denigrate the evolving alternatives and also pan WiMax. Solid anti-competitive actions.