Diana Goovaerts Mobile Mix: AI, Android and open RAN Tags A US appeals court handed Qualcomm a win in an ongoing battle with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over its patent licensing practices, overturning an earlier ruling which would have forced the company to renegotiate old deals with customers.In its decision, the appeals court determined the FTC failed to prove Qualcomm’s alleged conduct impaired the opportunities of rivals in violation of competition law, noting “profit-seeking behaviour alone is insufficient to establish antitrust liability”.Don Rosenberg, Qualcomm EVP and general counsel, said in a statement the ruling “validates our business model and patent licensing programme and underscores the tremendous contributions that Qualcomm has made to the industry”.The FTC filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm in January 2017, claiming the company used anti-competitive tactics to maintain a dominant position in the semiconductor market. A judge ruled in the regulator’s favour in May 2019, ordering the company to strike new deals with its customers.Qualcomm promptly appealed the decision, with its case bolstered by support from the Department of Justice, which claimed a damaging ruling against the company could harm national security by weakening its ability to compete with Chinese rivals. Subscribe to our daily newsletter Back Author Blog: How is chip shortage affecting US? Español Related Home Qualcomm wins appeal in FTC patent row Las operadoras respaldan el papel de Qualcomm en la RAN abierta Diana is Mobile World Live’s US Editor, reporting on infrastructure and spectrum rollouts, regulatory issues, and other carrier news from the US market. Diana came to GSMA from her former role as Editor of Wireless Week and CED Magazine, digital-only… Read more AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInLinkedInShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to MoreAddThisMore 11 AUG 2020 Previous ArticleFacebook brings payment plays under one roofNext ArticleXiaomi readies Mi 10 Ultra, Redmi K30 Ultra essential patentsFTCpatent licensingQualcomm
According to GasBuddy price reports, the cheapest station in Texas is priced at $1.45/g today while the most expensive is $2.69/g, a difference of $1.24/g.The lowest price in the state today is $1.45/g while the highest is $2.69/g, a difference of $1.24/g.The national average price of gasoline has fallen 0.7 cents per gallon in the last week, averaging $2.14/g today.The national average is up 1.4 cents per gallon from a month ago and stands 41.4 cents per gallon lower than a year ago. Gas prices spiked last week in their biggest weekly rise since August, but consumers saw them cool back down.“With COVID-19 cases continuing to rise and restrictions weighing on gasoline demand, we’re likely to see optimism over vaccinations offset by lower current demand for the most part,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy.Texas gas prices have risen 0.5 cents per gallon in the past week, averaging $1.85/g today, according to GasBuddy’s daily survey of 13,114 stations. Next UpGas prices in Texas are 5.4 cents per gallon higher than a month ago and stand 36.6 cents per gallon lower than a year ago.“In the weeks ahead as that balance shifts and millions get the vaccination, if things look much improved, I would expect for a longer upward move in gas prices,” De Haan said.“For now, however, the holidays will be marked by the lowest seasonal prices in years.” Historical gasoline prices in Texas and the national average going back ten years:December 14, 2019: $2.22/g (U.S. Average: $2.56/g)December 14, 2018: $2.06/g (U.S. Average: $2.38/g)December 14, 2017: $2.20/g (U.S. Average: $2.44/g)December 14, 2016: $2.02/g (U.S. Average: $2.22/g)December 14, 2015: $1.79/g (U.S. Average: $2.01/g)December 14, 2014: $2.32/g (U.S. Average: $2.54/g)December 14, 2013: $3.05/g (U.S. Average: $3.23/g)December 14, 2012: $3.06/g (U.S. Average: $3.28/g)December 14, 2011: $3.08/g (U.S. Average: $3.26/g)December 14, 2010: $2.81/g (U.S. Average: $2.96/g)Neighboring areas and their current gas prices:• Midland Odessa – $1.95/g, unchanged from last week’s $1.95/g.• San Antonio – $1.73/g, down 2.0 cents per gallon from last week’s $1.75/g.• Austin – $1.79/g, down 0.7 cents per gallon from last week’s $1.79/g.
Pinterest Individuals who are high in attachment anxiety make more frequent comparisons to relationships involving ex-partners, compared to those who are low in attachment anxiety. This finding comes from a study published in the Journal of Relationships Research.While relationship research tends to view new relationships as independent from past ones, emerging evidence suggests this may not be the best approach. Studies continue to show that feelings about a past relationship can influence the way a person perceives their current relationship.This new study aimed to explore how attachment styles might make people more or less susceptible to ruminating over past relationships. Specifically, they were interested in whether attachment style might influence social comparisons to two types of people: a current partner’s ex or an ex’s current partner. LinkedIn A sample of 259 students currently in romantic relationships completed questionnaires that assessed their attachment style, relationship satisfaction, relationship uncertainty, and relationship social comparisons.Participants were asked whether they or their current partner had been in a previous relationship of at least six months. Based on responses to these questions, subjects were split into two conditions. Depending on which group they were in, they were asked additional questions that prompted social comparisons and evaluations of either their current partner’s ex (CPE) or their ex’s current partner (ECP).Example items were, ‘I compare the things that my partner does for me to the things my ex does for their current partner’ (ECP condition) and ‘I compare how happy I am in my relationship to how happy my partner was with his/her ex in their relationship’ (CPE condition).Results showed that subjects who scored high in attachment anxiety made more frequent social comparisons and also rated themselves less positively than their CPE or ECP when compared to those with lower levels of attachment anxiety.The authors suggest that, “for individuals who are uncertain in their relationships, these specific targets may serve as a potential threat to their relationship”.Those scoring high in attachment anxiety also experienced more relationship uncertainty than those who scored low in attachment anxiety. However, no relationship was found between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction. The authors state, “these findings suggest that although anxiously attached individuals may demonstrate some secure tendencies within the dyad (i.e., high relationship satisfaction), this may not be enough to surmount feelings of uncertainty within and outside of the dyadic context”.Researchers suggest that these insights might be useful during counseling when a couple is confronting issues related to a previous partner. “By highlighting the biases at play in the anxiously attached individual to both the individual and their partner … this research might assuage relationship uncertainties”.The study, “The Ex-Factor: Attachment Anxiety and Social Comparisons Across Romantic Relationships”, was authored by Simran Hingorani and Rebecca T. Pinkus. Share Email Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
The Ministry of Justice has reversed plans for six-fold increases in some fees for asylum and immigration cases, it told parliament today. The announcement was warmly welcomed by the Law Society. In a written ministerial statement, justice minister Sir Oliver Heald said the department had listened to the representations it received on the current fee levels and has ‘decided to take stock and review the immigration and asylum fees’. The ministry’s consultation response document stated that only five respondents out of 147 agreed with the fee increases. Nonetheless in September the ministry announced that it was proceeding with hefty increases and began charging up to £800 for an oral hearing in the first-tier tribunal. However, from today, applicants will be charged fees at previous levels, Heald said. In cases where the new fees have been paid, the ministry will reimburse the difference between the new and previous fee. An extended system of fee exemptions will continue, such as for children in local authority care and for holders of a Home Office destitution waiver.The ministry will bring forward secondary legislation to formalise its position ‘as soon as possible’, the statement said. In the meantime, the change will come into force through the use of the lord chancellor’s discretionary power to remit or reduce fees.Fees were introduced in the first-tier tribunal in 2011. These are £80 for an application on paper and £140 for an oral hearing – ‘well below’ full-cost recovery levels, Heald said.Earlier this year the ministry consulted on raising the fees to a level to recover the full cost of proceedings. It also consulted on introducing fees for appeals in the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal, and for permission to appeal applications in the first-tier and upper tribunals.Heald stressed that the government still believes that those who use courts and tribunals should pay more, where they can realistically afford to do so, to ensure the justice system is properly funded to protect access to justice, and relieve the burden on the taxpayer.In 2015/16, the net cost of the courts and tribunals service to taxpayers was £1.2bn, which Heald said was ‘unsustainably high’.The role of upper tribunal fees will form part of the ministry’s review of tribunal fees. A consultation on new plans for tribunal fees, including in the immigration and asylum chambers of the first-tier and upper tribunals, will be published ‘in due course’.Law Society welcomed the announcement. Chief executive Catherine Dixon said: ‘We are delighted that government has listened to our concerns. We are also pleased that those who paid the increased fee are to be reimbursed. The Law Society vigorously opposed the fee increases because equal access to justice is more important than income generation when it comes to setting court and tribunal fees. We note the government is now embarking on a wider review of tribunal fees which we welcome and we will be monitoring that process carefully.’Bob Neill, chair of the Commons justice committee, echoed the welcome. ‘We concluded in our recent report that the cost-recovery aim of the proposed six-fold increases would not be realistic; that there was a danger that the increases would deny vulnerable people the means to challenge the lawfulness of decisions taken by the state; and that it was unwise for the government to have brought forward these proposals before its review of the impact of employment tribunal fees has been published. It is very good to see the government prepared to listen and take action as a result.’Bar Council chair Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC said the ministry’s announcement was encouraging. However, she said the Bar Council ‘remains concerned about the remaining enhanced and increased court fees’.