If I had to separately buy a radioOne equivalent licence from somebody else, and it was included in my all-in-one price from QUALCOMM, I would be unlikely to buy it. Apart from the money, the radioOne would be likely to integrate well with the other QUALCOMM technology. Similarly, I'd be inclined to use the Microsoft browser because it would be likely to integrate well with the other Microsoft software. Also, the other browser equivalent would cost money.
It seems to me to be putting a very fine point on the pencil used to separate the two situations. I suppose with the QUALCOMM situation, the buyer doesn't actually take delivery of the technology in the form of bits taking up space in their equipment, so it's different in that respect.
These are very good points, Mq., but on reflection they do not worry me.
I would argue in your hypothetical radioOne example that if functionality and efficiency are superior throughout the entire suite of Q's patent portfolio, then there is no tying, particularly if the manufacturer is free to use someone else's methods. Netscape had a good argument with Microsoft because Microsoft in effect insisted that its browser be used along with its software. Not the case here.
So long as Q keeps delivering superior stuff, I see very little about which to worry. It's also a reason I have kept my eyes on the steadily growing R&D expense, which has increased substantially in the last few quarters. This bodes well for any antitrust problems.
Our departed and missed colleague, Brad [S100], was of the opinion that the TXN cross-licensing deal gave Q an antitrust vaccination for the foreseeable future as respects WCDMA royalties. I agree.
Bottom line: not concerned about antitrust. |
