Why would DoCoMo have to pay royalties to Qualcomm? They're merely a carrier, not an equipment manufacturer. Besides, I'm sure that they knew that even if Qualcomm were never to earn a cent from W-CDMA, that high royalties would be a part of the game, given the number of W-CDMA IPR holders that are out there. On another note, DoCoMo itself could generate some decent royalties off of W-CDMA, given that they don't need to enter into any cross-licensing agreements. This could prove to be a valuable hidden asset possessed by the company. Of course, certain equipment providers might prove willing to charge less to DoCoMo in return for lower royalty rates.
One last thing: "Andrew Seybold's Outlook" is a Forbes publication, which means that it's very likely that Gilder is a bit of an influence on this guy's thoughts, which in turn fully explains lines such as the one that states that DoCoMo will have to pay Qualcomm royalties (hey, he's a fairly good technologist, he just doesn't always do a good job of keeping track of where his companies stand from a financial perspective).
Eric
PS - FWIW, I once read an issue of Seybold's newsletter, and while I did find a couple of interesting paragraphs within it, I also think that there's much better stuff out there, and that to call his work "the authoritative monthly newsletter for the Wireless Internet and Mobile Computing communities" is quite a stretch. |
