Fine -- Engadget Mobile

fine posts

South Korea slaps Qualcomm with massive fine for anticompetitive behavior

by Chris Ziegler posted Jul 23rd 2009 @ 3:48PM

Qualcomm is no stranger to legal action, but at the end of the day, you've gotta hit 'em in the pocketbook if you want to get a company to change its ways. South Korea's antitrust authorities have decided that the wireless chipmaker is guilty of some nefarious deeds, imposing a 260 billion won fine -- that's 26 with ten zeroes after it -- or about $209 million, which is a new record for the agency. The company has a rather large operation in South Korea dealing with giants Samsung and LG, and that seems to be where the problem starts -- South Korea claims that they're offering better contracts to companies who deal exclusively with Qualcomm and shun its competitors, which the government is taking issue with. For its part, Qualcomm denies any wrongdoing and is vowing to "vigorously" defend itself as it works its way through the country's court system. Whatever, we just want cheaper phones, you know?

Sluggish iPhone sales could lead to stiff fines for Russian operators

by Darren Murph posted May 22nd 2009 @ 2:01PM

See folks, this is the kind of mess you end up with after you gleefully do a deal with the devil. According to a roundup of reports over at Unwired View, three of Russia's major mobile operators could be looking at massive (we're talking hundreds of millions of bucks) fines if they can't sell through their iPhone allotments, and unless a significant market shift happens within the next few months, that situation seems remarkably unlikely. We're told that Vimpelcom pledged to sell 1.5 million iPhones within two years, while Megafon committed to 1 million and MTS the same. Today, just 900,000 iPhones have been imported to Russia, with over half entering the country via grey market channels; we'll let you figure out the math there, but it ain't pretty for Russia's carriers. Of course, we're not shocked in the least -- after getting burnt by a bootable-but-not-usable iPhone over there, are you seriously going to give Apple another chance to win you over?

[Thanks, Staska]

AT&T forced to pay $2 million for violating court orders in Dobson acquisition

by Darren Murph posted Jan 15th 2009 @ 3:01PM

You just thought that whole AT&T-Dobson Communications tie up was completely over. Turns out, AT&T is now being asked to pay $2 million as part of a civil settlement for violating a pair of court orders related to the acquisition. According to a petition filed by the Department of Justice, the carrier failed to fulfill its obligations when divesting mobile wireless businesses in three rural service areas (two in Kentucky and one in Oklahoma). In essence, AT&T personnel reportedly obtained "unauthorized access to the divested businesses' competitively sensitive customer information, and in some situations used it to solicit and win away the divested businesses' customers," and it doesn't take a lawyer to understand how sketch that is. Tsk, tsk, AT&T.

[Via RCRWireless]

Court to T-Mobile, AT&T: your voicemail ain't secure, so stop saying otherwise

by Chris Ziegler posted Dec 13th 2008 @ 7:25PM

Thanks to SpoofCard, AT&T and T-Mobile now owe some cash in the state of California, and the rest of us have been given one more reason to lie awake at night. The service -- of questionable non-illegal value -- reports your Caller ID phone number as anything you like, and injunctions filed in Los Angeles demand that the carriers stop advertising their voicemail services as being secure, considering that they can be set to rely on the calling phone number alone to connect to a specific voicemail box. For their indiscretions, AT&T will be coughing up $59,300 and T-Mobile owes an even 25 grand; meanwhile, SpoofCard's parent company will pay $33,000 for advertising its service as being legal in 50 states even though it's not.

[Via Phone Scoop]

Qualcomm gets spanked for failing to turn over evidence in Broadcom case

by Chris Ziegler posted Jan 9th 2008 @ 5:17PM

We know that minding your P's and Q's can be a challenge in a lawsuit as long, drawn out -- and frankly, boring as the ongoing Qualcomm / Broadcom patent dispute, but isn't this just a little sloppy? Qualcomm has been fined a hefty $8.6 million for "failing" to turn over a veritable wheelbarrow of evidence in the Broadcom case, and here's the real kicker: the money goes straight into Broadcom's pocket. Seriously, at this point, wouldn't it have been way cheaper for Qualcomm to just pony up the licensing fee?

Texting, talking at the wheel could land Brits in jail

by Darren Murph posted Dec 21st 2007 @ 9:58AM

We already knew that UK motorists caught driving while texting (or vice-versa) could face a penalty of two whole years in the slammer, but now it seems that merely talking while controlling a motor vehicle could land you in the exact same predicament. Reportedly, British drivers caught chatting on a handset or sending an SMS while on the road "could be jailed" under new guidelines that are expected to be published. In the most extreme cases, they could be tagged with "dangerous driving, which carries a two-year maximum sentence and an unlimited fine." Currently, these folks simply get slapped with an "automatic fine and three points on their license under the lesser charge of careless driving." But honestly, it's not like prison would be so bad for cellphone addicts -- after all, we hear some cells over there actually provide service.

[Image courtesy of MotorTrend]

FCC gets around to proposing fines for E911 misses

by Chris Ziegler posted Sep 9th 2007 @ 8:37AM

The FCC's goal of 95 percent network compliance for enhanced 911 (E911) capability came and went long ago -- December 31, 2005, to be specific -- but like all good bureaucracies, it's just now taking the time to propose a few fines for the carriers that failed to comply. At the deadline, Alltel was apparently at 84 percent, US Cellular rocked out at 89 percent, Sprint came in at 81 percent, and future partner in marriage Nextel was at 74 percent, leaving significant swaths of their respective networks without the ability to locate subscribers in the event of an emergency. For their failures, Sprint Nextel's looking at about a $1.3 million slap on the wrist, Alltel can expect $1 million, and US Cellular about $500,000. Not enough to drive any of the three to the verge of bankruptcy -- and really, not enough for any of the three to even notice when the cash gets pulled out of the coffers. Way to be, FCC.

[Via Phone Scoop]

Mobile speed cameras to suprise chatty motorists with penalties

by Jeannie Choe posted Feb 28th 2007 @ 2:16AM

Nowadays, we're lucky to be able to so much as breathe air while driving without getting penalized. As of late, motorists in South Yorkshire have quite the incentive to keep their phone conversations under wraps while in transit. Mobile speed cameras, traditionally used to catch speeders, will be used by police to catch unsuspecting chit-chatters in the act, who would later receive an unexpected notice showing 3 points on their license and a demand for £60, which was recently, and perhaps not-so-coincidentally, increased from £30. "If officers using mobile cameras see someone using a hand-held phone, whether with their own eyes or through the lens of their camera, then they are fair game." There's been no word on plans for similar implementation within the automated camera system, but "that is not to say that we can't change the policy," states Meredydd Hughes, the head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Constables. Drivers may soon feel compelled to throw down some cash for a headset, although there's even been speculation on the perils of hands-free yapping -- looks like a good tint-job's the last resort... and how about some spinners while you're at it?

[Via Textually]

Crash while cellphone talkin', cough up $500

by Ryan Block posted Sep 4th 2006 @ 11:18PM

Talk about adding insult to injury (seriously); DeKalb County, in Georgia, has recently passed a law that would fine drivers at fault for auto accidents if they were talking on their cellphone at the time of the crash. You'd think someone who just got in an accident might have already learned their lesson about paying attention to the road while on the phone, but hey, why fine preventatively (or ban alltogether) when you can just monetarily punish people who may also have to live with the unbearable conscience of possibly having severely injured or killed someone else?

FCC puts the smack down on LocateCell

by Chris Ziegler posted Jul 16th 2006 @ 2:56PM

We know we give a lot of props to the FCC for outing unreleased products for us, but it turns out that's not the only honorable activity they engage in. It seems LocateCell, a little operation selling wireless customers' data (call logs and the like) against FCC regs, was issued a subpoena not too long ago inquiring into exactly how they were doing their evil deeds. They failed to respond in a timely fashion, earning the FCC's wrath in the form of a $97,500 fine, the maximum amount that can be levied for this type of buffoonery. Of course, $97,500 ain't that much for a lot of companies, and FCC chairman Kevin Martin is painfully aware, calling it "merely a cost of doing business" and looking to Congress to get that max fine bumped up a notch or two. Fortunately for anyone who values their privacy, LocateCell appears to have gone under anyway -- their website's now dead -- but let's just see these guys try to do business when they're staring down the barrel of a million-dollar fine, eh?