Mucho-Regarding patent expiration, I have read in the past that the patent expiration issue is neutralized by provisions in the licensing agreements which set a term that extends beyond the patent expiration date to a date that is more likely to be the anticipated lifecycle of the standard. Therefore, QCOM has an enforceable contractual right to collect royalties even after the IP rights have expired. Such a provision, I would think, would be supported by the consideration of licensing the standard during the IPR period, and is therefore enforceable.I don't know if this is true. Perhaps someone can clarify that issue for us.
Regarding the gradual weakening of QCOM's IPR stranglehold on QCOM, I know that this was a concern of Gregg Powers back when he used to talk to us. And indeed, part of the bet that the LTB&H crowd is making is based on the view that CDMA is, in its commercialized applications, very difficult science; that no one remotely approaches QCOM in its understanding and advancement of the science; that its intellectual capital is even more valuable than its IPR; and that therefore a disproportionate percentage of CDMA advancements will continue to come from QCOM.
This view seems even more probable when you consider that, over the past few years QCOM has been furiously pushing the envelope on CDMA science, while Nokia and friends have spent the majority of their intellectual talent (i) trying to build in altogether unnecessary distinctions from 1x into the WCDMA standard primarily as a (unsuccessful) patent avoidance device, and (ii) having done so, spinning their wheels trying to resolve the numerous technological obstacles presented by these distinctions, none of which have anything to do with advancing the state of CDMA capabilities.
Perhaps if, instead of greeting QCOM with such antipathy, Nokia's engineers had taken QCOM's work product and genuinely tried to improve upon it, things would be different. But, as they stand now,it is impossible to imagine anyone doing CDMA without QCOM. Sorta like trying to do Mardi Gras without New Orleans.
As always, I welcome contrary opinions. Often I find them illuminating. |
