In spite of the lingering trade discrepancy in advanced technology products, the United States stays as the worldwide trendsetter for telecommunications and networking. U.S. firms are presently battling against Chinese state-influenced companies such as Huawei, for one, that will identify if the American dominance continues into this 5G technology generation.
5G technology, as indicated in an online news site article, "is the next big leap in mobile networking," a technology cluster that is set to deliver greatly augmented speed, reliability, and bandwidth to users. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, 5G technology is crucial to the upcoming military applications, including autonomous vehicles, battlefield robots, and multispectral sensor union. However, whether the warfighters and economy of America are to benefit entirely from 5G relies on the large part on who sets the ideals and offers key technology.
Risky Court Decision
In contrast to that background, according to reports, a federal court decision made the middle of this year, is said to have threatened to undercut the benefits that the American businesses have in the 5G Technology race, bringing an early triumph to China. In the said decision, it was noted that the present American leader, in terms of 5G technology, Qualcomm, violated the antitrust law. Consequently, the company, in turn, was directed to offer its collection of intellectual property to its competitors at "concessionary prices."
The judge who wrote the decision, Judge Lucy Koh said, she did not dispute to question the ownership of Qualcomm of the said technologies. Additionally, original accrediting technology to producers of smartphones, as well as the other tech firms, has been a core feature of the business model of the company for quite some time now. Nevertheless, the judge learned that failure of Qualcomm to share it at instinctively more reasonable prices was equivalent to anti-economical behavior.
Fundamental Errors
The Justice Department argued the court had made "fundamental errors" in her analysis, misusing the antitrust law and daunting an excessively broad remedy minus the consideration of how third parties may be injured. Moreover, the Defense Department cautioned that "any disturbance of the Qualcomm products supply, or services to the American government, or of the related R&D of Qualcomm, even for just a while, could have a damaging effect on national security.
There is not much doubt that if the court decision is retained, it will have deeply unfavorable consequences for Qualcomm since the firm produces much of its profits from the licensing intellectual property. The uncommon feature of this ruling is that the intellectual property's ownership is not questionable, combined with the insistence of the court that it needs to be shared at a cheaper price with the rivals of Qualcomm. And, even when firms operate as the so-called monopolies, it is infrequent for regulators to insist on the need for sharing of the proprietary technology with their direct rivals.
Incidentally, Qualcomm does not speak strictly of monopoly. However, it is widely recognized as a player of a distinct role in the telecommunications industry-a role nothing else any other U.S. enterprise is likely to fill in the setting of standards for the 5G technology rollout. Nevertheless, the Chinese businesses, most especially, Huawei, possibly could. Therefore, the court ruling perhaps confers a big competitive edge in the 5G battle on China that was never earned.
