US wireless association opposes USITC's Qualcomm import ban

Stuart Corner
Monday, 11 June 2007 10:19

IT Industry - Deals

The US Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assocation (CTIA) - a body with very broad representation from mobile carriers and handset, equipment and chip manufacturers - has come out against the US international Trade Commission's ban on the import of phones incorporating Qualcomm chips.

The USITC last week  took the decision to ban the import of new models of handsets using Qualcomm chips which, the USITC had decided, infringed on a patent held by rival chip manufacturer Broadcom.

In a statement the CTIA said the ban would "cause enormous undue harm to tens of millions of American wireless consumers," and it urged President Bush to veto the ITC importation ban. It suggested that "consumers should not have to pay the price for a legal debate that could be settled by other means."

Qualcomm has also called for a presidential veto on the ban, and says it will ask the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to stay enforcement of the ITC's order.

According to the CTIA, "The ITC decision unnecessarily decreases competition, and denies millions of consumer's access to innovative wireless broadband products. This decision flies in the face of public policy that encourages the availability of broadband services and products, and could have the unintended effect of impairing the wireless industry's efforts to improve communications in areas such as public safety."

The CTIA's view carries considerable weight on account of its very wide membership base. It boasts 42 US cellular operator members, 114 supplier members and 127 associate members.

Supplier members include major handset manufacturers, Nokia - which is also in the midst of a long running patent dispute with Qualcomm - Motorola, Samsung and LG. Equipment suppliers members include Alcatel-Lucent, Cisco, Ericsson, Nortel, and leading chip makers, Intel and Texas Instruments. Qualcomm is also a member but Broadcom, the company whose patent it has infringed is not.