2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 413.19

+1.1%

4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (128724)	1/21/2017 3:46:45 AM
From: Maurice Winn	of 219047

Apple should read their contract. If they didn't want to agree to the contract, they should not have agreed. << The complaint filed Friday in a San Diego federal court depicts Qualcomm as a monopolist abusing its power in a key segment of the mobile chip market to extort royalties for iPhone innovations that have nothing to do with Qualcomm's technology.>> Yes, the plastic case and display screen and battery are not part of the Qualcomm technology but royalties are payable on those components and all other components of which the device is comprised. But there is a maximum amount payable so that, for example, if the Apple device was made into a car worth $50,000, the royalty would be payable on the first $1000 [or whatever the agreed amount is - I guess about that much]. Adding cameras, microphones and lots of other things are also charged the royalty because the value of those things comes in part from the ability to use the wireless interface provided by Qualcomm so it's quite reasonable to charge the royalty for anything included up to the agreed maximum. The FTC made a last minute case while Obama's gang was still there to allow it through. The FTC reports to El President. Nokia took the litigious approach and went down the gurgler as a result. Nokia had a lawyer running the show so he must have thought lawsuits were a better way of running the business rather than being appreciative of Qualcomm and paying the royalty. Nokia lost big and went bust. For several years now, with Steve Jobs gone, I have been watching Apple. Tim Cook has done a passable job of carrying on from Jobs, but it looks as though they have jumped the shark. I expect this is the beginning of the end. For decades Qualcomm has been attacked but rarely has been found wanting - other than in the infamous "No downside" stupid case by Lou Lupin which Qualcomm lost. As soon as they launched the case using those words I ranted about how stupid it was. The judge also observed that "no downside" turned out to have a hefty downside. Lou Lupin was fired so he got some downside too. GSM charged 16% royalty. Qualcomm charged 5.5% for CDMA originally but for LTE that went all the way down to about 2.6%. If 16% was reasonable, it's hard to see how giving vastly more amazing technology away for only 2.6% isn't an absolute bargain. If we compared Apple's revenue with Qualcomm's we can see that Apple is doing okay, having the world's biggest market capitalisation and vast cash hoards and stupendous revenue. Yet they want to rob Qualcomm of even the derisory payment they receive for the technology that made Apple fantastically rich. Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next