video
Thư viện
Tài trợ
Qualcomm độc quyền như thế nào?
26 Dec, 2019
theo cách Rockefeller làm với dầu mỏ, và Bill Gates với hệ điều hành thôi, tính phí dùng (sản phẩm) đối với cả đối thủ...
-----
The story of how Qualcomm monopolizes (trở nên độc quyền) is pretty simple. The corporation does what Bill Gates did to computer manufacturers and what John D. Rockefeller did to railroads. Rockefeller’s oil was critical to railroads, and Gates’s operating system software was critical to computer makers. Both of them thus forced their dependents to give them a fee not just for every Rockefeller barrel (thùng) of oil or Microsoft OS license, but a fee for every one of their competitors’ as well. They taxed their competition and made it impossible to compete.
Qualcomm does this as well. As its competitor Intel explained, Qualcomm “refuses to sell [phone makers] any chipsets unless those manufacturers also purchase separate patent licenses that require them to pay exorbitant (cao quá đáng; cắt cổ) royalties (tiền trả cho người chủ một bản quyền hoặc bằng sáng chế; tiền bản quyền tác giả; tiền nhuận bút; tiền do một công ty mỏ hoặc dầu lửa trả cho sở hữu chủ của miếng đất đang được khai thác; tiền thuê mỏ) for every handset they sell, regardless of whether the handset contains a Qualcomm chipset.” In other words, it’s the Gates/Rockefeller playbook. Find an essential chokehold (điểm nghẽn), and use it to control the industry.
Qualcomm uses a few other anti-competitive tactics. It refused to license its patents - essentially standard and necessary for the industry - to competitors. And it cut exclusive deal arrangements with customers to box anyone else out of the market.
Bài trước: Khai thác năng lượng gió ở Đức
Tags: economics
-----
monopolies are bad for national security, said by former DHS cabinet member Michael Chertoff:
In the technology race against China, the U.S. should prefer to let competition drive innovation rather than support exclusive national champions. Apart from the economic inefficiency, a single-source national champion creates an unacceptable risk to American security—artificially concentrating vulnerability in a single point. The government’s argument in support of Qualcomm isn’t prudent, and if courts accept it, the result would be a self-inflicted wound to U.S. national interests. We need competition and multiple providers, not a potentially vulnerable technological monoculture.