For example, after the recent good news line earnings report, the share price of Qualcomm soared by 13%, and its share price broke through the high of $100 again. The last time that the company’s stock price had such a performance could be traced back to 10 years ago. One important reason is that Huawei signed a new license agreement, which will pay $1.8 billion in a lump sum in September to settle the outstanding patent license fees. Qualcomm also began lobbying the U.S. government to continue to ship chips to Huawei. < p > < p > less than two weeks later, a more far-reaching decision for Qualcomm was released, and the cloud of monopoly that has been hanging over the head also needs to gradually dissipate. According to the verge and other foreign media reports, the local time of Qualcomm was 12 The court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the United States overturned the previous judgment of the Federal District Court on the anti competition lawsuit against Qualcomm, saying that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the company was suspected of illegal monopoly. The court ruled that the company did not illegally crowd out competitors of mobile phone chips and then charged excessive royalties from manufacturers such as < / P > < p >. As soon as the news came out, the share price of Qualcomm went up as high as US $115.79, the highest price in 20 years. Compared with the single income, this judgment may bring about changes in the revenue model, which is obviously more influential. < p > < p > Qualcomm is the leader of 5g in the United States, and it is also a mountain that all smartphone manufacturers cannot bypass. Today, the mountain seems to be at a higher altitude. < p > < p > in more than 30 years of development, Qualcomm has participated in the establishment of several generations of communication standard, and accumulated a large number of patents. Therefore, this fabless chip design company, in addition to QCT business (i.e., chip trading), also has a higher profit margin business QTL. < / P > < p > and the patent licensing fee of Qualcomm has always been a controversial revenue model. Due to the irreplaceable position of Qualcomm in the industry chain, the profit model also has the meaning of “collecting tolls while lying down”, and the accusation of monopoly has never been reduced. < / P > < p > and the antitrust investigation of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Qualcomm started in 2017, and apple was also behind it. This is another story that will not start. In May last year, a federal judge in San Jose, California, United States, ruled in the FTC lawsuit against Qualcomm that it was in violation of the federal antitrust law by charging unreasonable patent licensing fees to other manufacturers. For many years, Qualcomm’s licensing behavior in the mobile chip market has suppressed competition and damaged the rights and interests of competitors, OEM factories and end consumers. On the same day, Qualcomm’s shares fell more than 12%. < p > < p > it’s natural for Qualcomm to charge fees for its own products. The reason why Qualcomm is targeted is that if its customers (i.e. downstream mobile phone manufacturers) purchase chips from other companies, they must also pay royalties to Qualcomm. If not, Qualcomm will stop supplying products. This clause is called “no license”, No chips “clause. < / P > < p > sounds like a little rogue, right? But the company, which holds a large number of patents, has such a solid foundation, because its competitors can not avoid the patents of Qualcomm. < / P > < p > for such a revenue model, FTC believes that Qualcomm is taking advantage of its dominant position in mobile chips. On the one hand, it overcharges royalties, on the other hand, it also crowns out competitors to consolidate its monopoly position. < / P > < p > and a month ago, apple just reached a settlement with Qualcomm. The former not only paid a one-time “settlement fee”, but also paid for each machine in the future. Of course, Qualcomm has been fined $1.2 billion for the exclusive agreement of Apple baseband. The formal name of the Antitrust Law mentioned by FTC is the law on the protection of trade and Commerce from illegal restrictions and monopolies. The Act provides that any act of entering into a contract in the form of trust, a merger, or a conspiracy to restrict trade is an offence, and is intended to monopolize any part of interstate commerce and trade, or to attempt to monopolize, unite or conspire. Individuals or organizations that violate the law will be subject to civil or criminal sanctions. < p > < p > this law was introduced in 1890, which is the first act in American history to authorize the federal government to control and intervene in the economy. At that time, there were monopolistic organizations in the fields of oil, coal mining, oil extraction, tobacco and sugar making, which destroyed the economic structure of liberal capitalism. Today, the communications industry of Qualcomm is the “petroleum coal” of the new era, and the infrastructure industry can not be monopolized. < p > < p > by February this year, the federal judgment on FTC’s antitrust case was also published. The US government won the case, and Qualcomm had monopoly facts. In this regard, the legal team of Qualcomm admitted that at this stage, Qualcomm is indeed a monopoly enterprise, but argued that it did not violate the law. It held doubts about the FTC’s accusation and appealed. < / P > < p > half a year later, the verdict finally stood in the favor of Qualcomm. In the judgment, the judge held that the “no license, no chips” of Qualcomm belongs to “excessive competition” rather than “anti competition”, which belongs to the scope of contract patent law and is not anti trust law. The patent licensing terms of Qualcomm are signed with OEM, and Qualcomm has no obligation to license to competitive chip manufacturers. < / P > < p > in other words, Qualcomm’s profit model of lying on its back to collect rent should have a firm foothold. No matter whether you use the chip of Qualcomm or not, as long as you involve relevant patents, you will be paid. < p > < p > the New York Times quoted a legal person as saying that the FTC can ask a judge of the court of appeal to review a judgment or appeal to the Supreme Court, but the chances of success for both are not high. < / P > < p > the patent war between apple and Qualcomm was very heated. Apple thought that the revenue model of Qualcomm was too bad to be written, but it ended up in a settlement, which was regarded as the embodiment of the firm “monopoly” position of Qualcomm. Apple tried to support < / P > < p > or develop its own research, but the result was not smooth. As a result, its 5g layout was slow and had to compromise. Huawei also chose to pay the money obediently and make up for the patent fee. Both Huawei and apple, which are “invincible” in their respective fields, have chosen to “compromise” with Qualcomm. Since the stock price of the company has been unstable since last year, the stock price of the company has not been good. There is a view that the impact of losing key customers in China will be very great, but if the implementation of “no license, no chips” of Qualcomm continues, the impact will be very small. < p > < p > Qualcomm is crucial to 5g construction in the United States. On the one hand, the United States, which pays attention to procedural justice, must avoid the monopoly of Qualcomm, but at the same time, it must ensure the normal development of the industry. In May last year, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Department of justice had asked for a hearing and invited a third party to come forward with remedial suggestions, so as to avoid the fact that Qualcomm had violated the antitrust law. The announcement pointed out that the impact of remedial measures on other public policies should be minimized. The relevant departments of the United States have also clearly pointed out that Qualcomm is of vital importance to the interests of the United States and can help the country to confront China’s 5g technology. < / P > < p > the cloud of monopoly has been hanging over the head of Qualcomm. Prior to the FTC, Qualcomm had been fined $975 million in China, 873 million in South Korea and 242 million in the European Union. This judgment can not be said to be the final judgment, but this is the first time in a few years that the verdict is in favor of Qualcomm. Considering the recent news of Qualcomm and the 5g construction in the United States, it has to be said that this may be a turning point in this long monopoly case. Although the revenue model of “one capital and ten thousand profits” is still controversial, it is inevitable that it will be legal and compliant.