Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 172.72

-4.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Kuranoshin who wrote (48450)	11/5/2005 1:19:18 PM
From: Raymond	Read Replies (5) of 196442

Kuranoshin "3G CELLULAR STANDARDS AND PATENTS" I looked in this report to check out what you said about that Qualcomm had 38% of the essential patents. You didn't mention that this was the declared essential IPR from the authors.The conclusion of the report was that QCOM had 54% of the essential 3GPP2 essential patents and for 3GPPP 30% compared to 40% for Nokia and 34% for Ericsson.It is also mentioned in the report that there where on top on this IPR that where essential to GSM,Edge... and other earlier standards that could also be essential for 3G standards.Companies like Lucent and Nortel hadn't declared any patents as essential .They probably also have a lot of patents also not counted here.The conclusion how I see it's that QCOM doesn't have that high percentage of the essential patents for 3G WCDMA. On top of this there is also all the GSM only related patents.How much do you all think it's reasonable that QCOM pays to Nokia and Ericsson when it's time to renew their licensing agreements.Maybe 3 % are reasonable towards Ericsson.They don't use the CDMA 2000 patents any more and they have all their GSM patents and more essential 3GPP patents then QCOM.Nokia still makes CDMA2000 phones but on the other hand has much more patents on WCDMA.So if Nokia pays 4% for CDMA2000 and QCOM 2% to Nokia for WCDMA it would still make a positive for Nokia because of the size of the WCDMA market. I know that this is just bullshit and has nothing to do with the actual agreements but I think looking from outside it would not be all that unreasonable.I don't understand why all people on this thread thinks that QCOM:s patents are more essential than the essential patents compared to other companies.QCOM didn't invent cellular.Didn't invent power control,Handovers........All this existed in earlier standards. Many of the basics of CDMA is not really rocket science.Take CDMA powercontrol for example.It's basically one db down or one db up in every slot.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next