|Bid||57.70 x 2900|
|Ask||58.00 x 1000|
|Day's Range||57.24 - 58.33|
|52 Week Range||47.52 - 61.58|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||0.47|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||14.89|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||2.41 (4.43%)|
|1y Target Est||N/A|
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio filed legislation on Monday that would prevent Huawei Technologies Co Ltd from seeking damages in U.S. patent courts, after the Chinese firm demanded that Verizon Communications Inc pay $1 billion (£797 million) to license the rights to patented technology. Under the amendment - seen by Reuters - companies on certain U.S. government watch lists, which would include Huawei, would not be allowed to seek relief under U.S. law with respect to U.S. patents, including bringing legal action over patent infringement. On June 12, a person briefed on the matter said Huawei had told Verizon that it should pay licensing fees for more than 230 of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker's patents and in aggregate is seeking more than $1 billion.
Verizon Communications (VZ) closed at $57.63 in the latest trading session, marking a -1.12% move from the prior day.
(Bloomberg) -- A group of states sued to block T-Mobile US Inc.’s proposed takeover of Sprint Corp. on antitrust grounds, putting pressure on the Justice Department as it nears a final decision on the merger of the two wireless carriers.State attorneys general from nine states and the District of Columbia filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court in New York to stop a deal they say will harm competition and raise prices for consumers by at least $4.5 billion a year.“When it comes to corporate power, bigger isn’t always better,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “This is exactly the sort of consumer-harming, job-killing mega-merger our antitrust laws were designed to prevent.”The states’ challenge is a major setback to T-Mobile’s and Sprint’s plan to combine and take on industry leaders AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. Last month, the carriers cleared a key hurdle when they won support for their deal from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.The all-Democratic attorneys general are taking the rare step of suing to block the $26.5 billion deal while the Justice Department is still reviewing the merger. State enforcers have the authority to go to court to block a merger even if federal officials at the Justice Department and the FCC approve it. Sprint shares dropped 6.4% at 12:15 p.m. in New York trading. T-Mobile fell 1.7%.The spread between T-Mobile’s offer price and Sprint shares is the widest since May 17. It’s a sign that investors are more doubtful that a deal will get done.Sprint and T-Mobile representatives didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.The case, which was filed under seal, puts pressure on Makan Delrahim, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division. He can either side with the states, which say the merger should be blocked, or negotiate a remedy that would allow the deal to proceed. Delrahim doesn’t think a settlement with the FCC goes far enough to resolve competition problems from the deal and is in talks with the companies about additional concessions.What Bloomberg Intelligence Says:T-Mobile getting its proposed $27 billion acquisition of Sprint past regulatory hurdles is no done deal, though the companies have some defenses that stand a chance. The Department of Justice has expressed interest in the competitive potential of 5G technology and a strong competitor to AT&T and Verizon in that area. The outcome depends to a great extent on whether the evidence supports T-Mobile’s assertions about future market dynamics and 5G competition.\--Jennifer Rie, litigation analystClick here to view the pieceThe state attorneys general say that combining T-Mobile and Sprint would eliminate competition between them and lead to higher prices. And in a more consolidated market, AT&T and Verizon would also be able to charge more.“Although T-Mobile and Sprint may be promising faster, better, and cheaper service with this merger, the evidence weighs against it,” said California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “This merger would hurt the most vulnerable Californians and result in a compressed market with fewer choices and higher prices.”In the retail mobile wireless market, not including enterprise accounts, T-Mobile and Sprint would lead AT&T and Verizon in market share, according to the states. In some areas of the country, their market share would be more than 50%, they said. Harm from the tie-up will disproportionately fall on lower-income consumers who are customers of Sprint and T-Mobile’s pre-paid brands, Boost and Metro, they say.Deal InvestigationAccording to people familiar with their thinking, state officials don’t know whether the Justice Department will ultimately approve the deal. They are taking action because after investigating the merger for about a year they determined it violated antitrust laws and they don’t see any reason to wait for the Justice Department to make a decision, the people said.The states’ investigation, led by the chief of New York’s antitrust bureau, Beau Buffier, relied on technical and economic experts, according to one of the people. Their economists are Carl Shapiro of the University of California at Berkeley and Yale University’s Fiona Scott Morton, the person said.The case comes more than a year after T-Mobile and Sprint announced the deal to combine, claiming together they could better compete with Verizon and AT&T while speeding deployment of the next generation of wireless technology known as 5G. Although a previous attempt to merge was frustrated by the Obama administration, T-Mobile and Sprint were betting on a more receptive audience from the Trump officials.The tie-up’s fate now rests with a federal judge, who must decide whether it should be blocked on antitrust grounds. The companies could still reach a settlement before the case goes to trial.If the carriers are stopped from completing the deal, they would be left to their own to compete in a maturing wireless market while financing expensive investments in developing their own 5G networks.‘Supercharge’ T-MobileSprint’s challenges are bigger. Despite becoming profitable last year after a decade of losses, it warned the FCC that without a deal it sees “no obvious path to solve key business challenges.”T-Mobile Chief Executive Office John Legere took the lead on Capitol Hill -- and on social media -- advocating for the deal. He said the transaction would “supercharge” his company, which he made a maverick competitor in the market. The centerpiece of his case was that combining with Sprint would help the U.S. lead in 5G technology, a priority for the Trump administration.That argument was dismissed by opponents of the deal, including consumer groups and the Communications Workers of America, which said the merger would reduce choice, lead to higher wireless bills and cause job losses.Getting a deal with T-Mobile was a long-held plan of Masayoshi Son, the chairman of SoftBank Group Corp., which owns Sprint. In 2014, he came to Washington vowing a price war if he was able to acquire T-Mobile and personally lobbied U.S. officials about a potential tie-up. If the deal goes through, T-Mobile owner Deutsche Telekom will end up with a 42% ownership stake while SoftBank will own 27%.(Updates with statement from James in third paragraph.)\--With assistance from Scott Moritz.To contact the reporters on this story: David McLaughlin in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org;Erik Larson in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sara Forden at firstname.lastname@example.org, Joe Schneider, David GlovinFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The improved bandwidth connectivity through Verizon's (VZ) fiber-optic network will offer high-resolution video to fans across the world to relive the key moments of the match without compromising on finer details.
Why everybody wins if the U.S. government succeeds in breaking up the big four tech companies — Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook.
(Bloomberg) -- As Huawei Technologies Co. comes under unrelenting pressure from the Trump administration, the Chinese telecom giant has one advantage that the U.S. can’t undermine: a vast, global portfolio of patents on critical technology.Huawei holds 56,492 active patents on telecommunications, networking and other high-tech inventions worldwide, according to Anaqua’s AcclaimIP. And it’s stepping up pursuit of royalties and licensing fees as its access to American markets and suppliers is being restricted.The company is in protracted licensing talks with phone-services provider Verizon Communications Inc. and is in a dispute with chipmaker Qualcomm Inc. over the value of patents. Huawei also lodged claims against Harris Corp. after the defense contractor sued it last year alleging infringement of patents for networking and cloud security.“Patents are, at their basic level, weapons of economic warfare,” said Brad Hulbert, a patent lawyer with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff in Chicago. “They’re being hurt by the sanctions that the Trump Administration imposed and saying ‘You have hurt us and our ability to sell, and we can hurt back.’ It’s saber-rattling.”Broader national security concerns also hang over this technology battle. In some circles Huawei’s outsized role as a supplier to next generation, or 5G networks makes it a potential threat either as an espionage agent or network disruption tool. Huawei has not only become a flashpoint in the middle of a 5G arms race, it’s also one of several companies targeted in President Donald Trump’s ongoing trade dispute with China.Trump signed an order in May that’s expected to restrict Huawei from selling equipment in the U.S. Shortly after, the Department of Commerce said it had put Huawei on a blacklist that could forbid it from doing business with American companies.For its part, the Asian nation sees Huawei as a potent symbol of its evolution from the world’s factory to a technology powerhouse, while the U.S. claims the tech company steals inventions from American firms.“Huawei has invested a lot of money and they want to be recognized,” said Jim McGregor, a Mesa, Arizona-based technology analyst with Tirias Research. “Huawei is just playing out standard business practices for the wireless industry.”Patent disputes are common in the tech industry, and the coming revolution predicted by advances in “5G” wireless technology promises to bring even more. Traditional players like Ericsson AB and Nokia Oyj are ramping up efforts to get more money from their patents. Qualcomm is appealing a ruling in a lawsuit by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission that threatens the licensing program that accounts for the bulk of its profits. Huawei and Samsung Electronics Co. ended a two-year royalty fight in February.Qualcomm and Huawei are seen as two of the biggest players developing 5G that could bring not only faster speeds but bring new capabilities including remote surgery via robots and self-driving cars that talk to each other. The global ban on Huawei equipment promoted by Trump has roiled telecom companies worldwide. It’s a reminder, McGregor said, that 5G relies on both the U.S. and China.“Huawei, over the past couple of years, has really ramped up its efforts in not only patents but in the standard bodies, particularly in wireless technology,” McGregor said. “They can say ‘whether you’re using our equipment or Ericsson’s equipment, you’re using our inventions. You still have to take a license.’”The Chinese government and companies have been investing billions in high-tech research, and have the patents to show for it. Last year alone, Huawei received 1,680 U.S. patents, making it the 16th biggest recipient, figures by Fairview Research’s IFI Patent Claims Services show. Huawei’s total portfolio of active patents and published applications is 102,911, according to Anaqua, an intellectual property-management software firm.Royalty demands against cell-phone carrier Verizon by Huawei, reported Wednesday by the Wall Street Journal, could be become part of the political battle, said Peter Toren, a Washington-based patent lawyer who consults with other firms and companies on licensing and litigation.“Given Huawei’s position and the pressure they are feeling, they have nothing to lose at this point than to go after American companies in the patent arena,” Toren said. “They get poked in one area and they’re going to stick back in another to show there are consequences for this continued pressure.“I don’t see how the government can stop them,” he said. “They have ownership in the patents.”Verizon, while declining to comment on specific talks, sees the negotiations as more than just a typical patent-licensing discussion.“These issues are larger than just Verizon,” the company said in a statement. “Given the broader geopolitical context, any issue involving Huawei has implications for our entire industry and also raise national and international concerns.”Officials with Huawei had no immediate comment.McGregor said it makes sense for Huawei to demand royalties from Verizon because it’s the largest cell-phone carrier in the U.S. Verizon claims it’s the first to offer speedy new 5G services for mobile phones, though it’s only available in a limited area.“If they don’t go to them within a reasonable amount of time and at least try to enforce those patents, those patents become unenforceable,” McGregor said. “You have to pick a starting point. It’s better to pick one of the major players and it makes sense to pick one of those who’s rolling out that technology.”\--With assistance from Ian King and Scott Moritz.To contact the reporter on this story: Susan Decker in Washington at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at firstname.lastname@example.org, Elizabeth WassermanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Huawei is demanding Verizon Communications Inc pay $1 billion (£790.39 million) to licence the rights to patented technology, signalling a potential shift in the embattled Chinese company's strategy for the U.S. market. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the letter on Wednesday. The fee would cover licensing of more than 230 patents.
American news publishers want Congress to pass a law that would give them the right to collectively bargain against Google, Facebook, and other major online platforms.
Target, RH, Verizon, SunTrust, BB&T and Samsung are the companies to watch.
Huawei Strikes Back…Against Verizon Chinese Telecom Huawei, pretty upset about President Trump’s sanctions against the company that have led to Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOGL) banning the company from using its Android operating system for its phones among other things, is striking back by insisting that Verizon (NYSE:VZ) pay it $1 billion in licensing fees for 230 patents […]The post Market Morning: Huawei Strikes Back, 'No' on No No Deal, Ancient Chinese Stoners, Crowded CrowdStrike appeared first on Market Exclusive.
The end of net neutrality was supposed to bring consumers better internet speeds and more broadband companies to choose from. It hasn't.
Huawei Technologies Co Ltd has told Verizon Communications Inc that the U.S. carrier should pay licensing fees for more than 230 of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker's patents and in aggregate is seeking more than $1 billion (£788 million), a person briefed on the matter said on Wednesday. Verizon should pay to "solve the patent licensing issue," a Huawei intellectual property licensing executive wrote in February, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier. The patents cover network equipment for more than 20 of the company's vendors including major U.S. tech firms but those vendors would indemnify Verizon, the person said.
Cable companies like Comcast and Charter aren't interested in promo pricing their video subscriber services anymore.
Verizon Communications (VZ) closed at $56.82 in the latest trading session, marking a +1.18% move from the prior day.
Salesforce.com (CRM) made headlines today after the company announced it was buying big data firm Tableau Software (DATA) for $15.3 billion.
The agency, on a 5-0 bipartisan vote, authorized carriers to automatically identify and block unwanted robocalls by using analytics that home in on sources of large bursts of calls, or place calls of brief duration, or other means. “If there is one thing in our country right now that unites Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, socialists and libertarians, vegetarians and carnivores, Ohio State and Michigan fans, it is that they are sick and tired of being bombarded by unwanted robocalls,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said as the FCC prepared to vote. The FCC’s two Democrats said the call-blocking services should be offered for free.
U.S. regulators on Thursday voted to allow phone companies to block unwanted "robocalls" by default as Americans grapple with billions of deceptive and annoying calls every year. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also voted to allow carriers to let companies block any calls not on a consumer’s contact list if the customer opts in. FCC commissioners conceded that the vote will not end all unwanted calls and urged carriers to take further steps to block them.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday voted to allow phone companies to block unwanted "robocalls" by default as policymakers grapple with billions of annual deceptive and annoying calls. The FCC also voted to allow carriers to let companies block any calls not on a consumer’s contact list if they opt in. FCC commissioners conceded that the vote will not end all unwanted calls and urged carriers to take further steps to block them.
Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer sits down with John Donahoe, president and CEO of ServiceNow, and former president and CEO of eBay.