Slacker,
I saw those figures too. When you stated "operators", of course I assumed operators in the US. Silly me.
Yes, network sharing should alleviate some of the infrastructure costs, however there will be other headaches amongst the operators, such as billing. Ugh...
In the future, can we please not include European Wireless Operators? <gggggg>
One point, "network sharing" affects all telcom companies, Qualcomm included.
Let's say they made an improvement to power control. This improvement will have been incorporated into the CDMA2000 standard. The underlying power control patent may expire but if you want your handset to connect to a CDMA2000 network you will need to use the improvement.
Of course, Qualcomm would be stupid to include someone elses IP into "their" standard. However, let's speculate, shall we? Do you believe that there is only one path to make an improvement upon power control, handoff, or whatever?
Of course, Qualcomm might have a "lock" on the improvements given its past history, however no one can say with absolute certainty that they will, or will not.
What if another infrastructure provider developed another way to improve power control, however it is less efficient? What if another infrastructure provider developed an improvement that is more efficient?
You may be right that an IS-95A handset could be developed without Qualcomm's patents (since the standard will be pretty old)
Most likely, however how big of a market is it for AMPS phones? I highly doubt that the market for IS95 handsets will be huge, or even profitable, 10 years down the road.
[T]he W-CDMA and 1xrtt/1xEV-DO standards have had new techniques built-in....which I think likely incorporate new Q patents.
This is what I would say, the next generation 1xrtt/1xEV-DO standards will predominantly have Qualcomm IP. The next generation W-CDMA standard will rely less upon Qualcomm IP.
I guess your next argument might be, whether this next generation W-CDMA standard utilizes one patent from Qualcomm or 100s, Qualcomm will charge the same rate, right?
IMO, Qualcomm can charge any rate they say desire, whether it be 1%, 5%, 50%, or even 100%.
Similiar arguments are presented regarding Rambus and their 5% royalty rate. One argument that I have seen from an IP Lawyer was that when a company joins JEDEC (the memory standards body), a corporation agrees to a "fair" and "reasonable" rate. Is there a simliar with ETSI et al.? I have no idea. However, let me present two "black" and "white" scenarios. If a standard utilizes more than 90% of Qualcomm IP, Qualcomm should be entitled to charge their "normal" and "customary" rate, whatever that might be. Howevever, what if a standard utilizes a couple of Qualcomm patents? Their "normal" and "customary" rate may not be considered "fair".
(Personally, I really do not want to get into a debate on what constitutes fair, et al.)
[T]he standards process has screwed Qualcomm over the years but it will be the source of their longevity.
The standards process "screws" alot of companies, not only Qualcomm. And, you have companies that have "alledgedly" taken advantage of the standards process. |
