SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 169.42-2.2%2:15 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ramsey Su who started this subject6/12/2004 7:51:24 AM
From: propitious7  Read Replies (1) of 196545
 
BREW fee allocation- not a royalty

As I recall, the 90-10-10 to QCOM allocation of user charges for a BREW download, as originally described in BREW releases from QCOM at the outset of BREW offerings, was a payment to QCOM for "service rendered". QCOM certifies each application as non-viral and compatible with all BREW carriers' operating software on handsets, then maintains all certified applications on its servers so downloads access QCOM servers which maintain billing information which is transmitted to relevant carrier; then carrier remits payment to QCOM which settles up with the application developer by transfer of payment. All this entails certain continuing costs to QCOM so the payment should be considered a service fee not a royalty for IPR.

Variations from this original proposed modus operandi have certainly evolved as certain BREW carriers were not satisfied to have QCOM so intimately involved in their operation and undoubtedly hondled the payment to QCOM. When and if BREW breaks into the GSM/WCDMA world, variations and curtailments of QCOM service and fee can be confidently predicted.

propitious
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext