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 Incorporated (QCOM)
QCOM 170.58-0.2%12:01 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jprincess who wrote (139833)11/1/2005 4:06:44 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (3) of 152472
 
Furthermore in the text we imply that QCOM will not struggle with the technological contribution to wcdma argument but in the argument as to why liscensees should effectively pay royalties on technolgies over which QCOM has no effective IP.

This aspect of the Nomura article troubled me as I couldn't see what the analyst was talking about. We all know Q has no GSM IPR that's worth a tinker's damn, and certainly cannot conceive of how Q could charge for nonexistent GSM IPR such that a request for an EEC investigation followed.

Then it hit me.

The claim is that by charging royalties on ASPs of dual mode phones in which one of the modes is GSM, Q is in effect collecting royalties on GSM IPR. This has to be the beef.

And an immensely stupid beef it is.

Charging on the basis of ASPs is simply a way of keeping track. If the argument is that Q charges for GSM IPR it doesn't have, it would have to collect royalties on a single mode GSM phone, which is ludicrous because it doesn't happen.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News