Hype, distorted PR ... ???
chapq,
I'm not sure how much hype there is. The relationship of IP to innovation to standards is legitimately subject to great debate and always will be across all sectors of technology. Motorola introduced the Europeans and Asians to its use and abuse in the GSM process and forever changed the way they approached the subject. QUALCOMM has kicked it up a notch with their approach. I'm somewhat bored with the subject other than when it affects my working life, but over the course of the years I've read several classics on the general subject, and several good whitepapers and dissertations by Frederik Gessler, Rudi Bekkers, et al on GSM, UMTS, and DECT, and the relationship of IP to those standards. Bekkers 2 books are very good, used copies available at reasonable prices, and here's a bibliography of some of his writings if you or others are interested:
fp.tm.tue.nl
I found Gessler's last dissertation on the development of wireless infrastructure standards to be above average well researched and written:
tinyurl.com
If Qualcomm charges ~5% of wholesale ASP for SE for use of their essential and non essential cdma IP, then stakeholders with high quality UMTS IP that actually participated in the UMTS standardization process and spent billions on R&D to create and mature the technology should be able to charge at least that shouldn't they? Or shouldn't they?
At the very least UMTS is probably going to command royalty payments equal to GSM plus ~5% payable to the new participant who has a pure IP business model for one of their major divisions, and probably at least 5% beyond that for new stakeholders.
<< The link I posted was interesting in light of the history of change in alliances since 2002. We're looking at some big developers (NEC, NTT DoCoMo, Siemens) in an alliance which has settled on purportedly justifiable numbers. I couldn't find any nonsense in there at all. >>
I'm not sure what 'justifiable' means to you. It might mean something different to me. DoCoMo's June 2003 article on the site is interesting. QUALCOMM set the bar in mobile wireless for what is 'justifiable', today. I hope you could find some up to date references to who is actually in the pool today in the Commercial Phase. I've combed the site numerous times since it was started and I don't know who is actually part of the pool today. These were the members in the implementation phase:
3gpatents.com
Ericsson, Nokia, and Motorola are just 3 companies who have decided not to participate in the patent pool. They'll cross license to some and collect royalties from others who would like to freeload off the open standards they helped create. At the end of the day their objective is to be net positive on royalty payments. Wannabe UMTS manufacturers without quality IP to trade in cross licensing are going to wind up with an IP cost burden greater than others.
I didn't catch all of Qualcomm's webcast this morning, but I did half listen to Steve Altman. Not much new from him, but QUALCOMM should have no problem selling their UMTS chips to 3rd and 4th tier handset manufacturers because they theoretically get some IP relief. Of course few 3rd and 4th tier manufacturers are going to become major players in the handset game. Most simply don't have the requisite competencies.
It'll all work out in the end, but we'll never know all the detail. The IP attorneys will stay busy for several years.
Best,
- Eric - |
