(((("Message #11653 from mmeggs at Jun 6, 2000 3:38 PM ET
But the amount Qualcomm would collect will differ radically from one flavour of CDMA to the next, analyst said. For example, some analysts estimate Qualcomm would rake in as much as five percent of the cost of every handset sold that is compatible with its homegrown next generation standard, CDMA2000. But an alternative standard, W-CDMA, has been developed by a slew of telecoms firms, from Sweden's Ericsson <LMEb.ST> and Finland's Nokia <NOK.N>, to U.S.-based Lucent Technologies <LU.N> and France's Alcatel <CGEP.PA> -- all of which claim a share of the patent rights. Even though Qualcomm claims ownership of the core technology of W-CDMA, analysts said cross-licensing of patents would whittle away its revenues to a fraction of what it would earn from CDMA2000. This is the first time I've heard this, and in such strong language. ("Fraction" in particular) While I suspect that this is just more FUD, does anyone have an educated opinion on whether the need for Q to cross-license makes for net lower royalty revenue?"))))
This has been the plan - lots of noses under the IP tent. This - not innovation - is what (W)CDMA is all about.
Qualcom, it seems to me, has been very clear on this issue. Use one, use them all - a set price for QCOM IP. If they can do CDMA without QCOM's patents, the more power to them. |
