C2, UMTS without CDMA is like a car without engine and wheels. Forget the steering too. No need for brakes. But UMTS without CDMA [and other QUALCOMM patents] would work well as a mobile ashtray, with headlights, horse-drawn, with skids instead of wheels.
<Of course, this would have risked having CDMA taken out of UMTS altogether. Unfortunately, Q was between a rock and a hard place, and we are now at the time when we feel the rock. >
No CDMA = no UMTS. Not one that could run mobile cyberspace cost-effectively anyway. Sure, they could have cobbled together something using TDMA, but the whole point of the arguments were that despite their very best endeavours, the evil-doing slimeball hagfish GSM Guild couldn't avoid QCOM's creations.
To the price of the patents!
<Why would an IPR buyer want to pay more for one essential patent than another? Put another way, why would the holder of a humdrum patent which is nonetheless essential wish to sell a license for its use for any less than the holder of the brilliantly innovative, creative, etc., one asks for his?
I wish there were easy answers, but if there are, I can't see them. The only ones I see require Q not to have agreed to participate in the 3G standards game, but the time for that gambit has long ago passed. If it had not done so, the value of its IPR might have been set by the market.......if the standard used it in the first place. >
QUALCOMM said all along that the price of the patents wasn't going to be some random number generator output, or some patent-counting melange of absurdity. They explained time and time again that the price would be the same as the rest of QCOM's agreements, which would be only fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Imagine if they agreed to charge LESS for the UMTS mess than they did for CDMA2000 - the CDMA2000 licensees would rightfully think that they were maltreated.
The 3G standards game was fair and reasonable and non-discriminatory patent pricing and that's exactly what QCOM agreed to and explained, time and again. There were no surprises.
The value of QCOM's technology has in fact been set by the market. It was known all along by all and sundry just what patents were involved [anyone who took the trouble to read them - which L M Ericsson seemed to be slow to do if we believe them that QCOM had no relevant technology to W-CDMA, which suggests they were outright dishonest scamsters which should be explored by the $1000 lawyers]. People knew what QCOM owned and what they were charging and the European spectrum was sold under those conditions and $100 billion collected. That was completely market determined. Anyone could get in there and bid.
The market showed exactly how underpriced QCOM's technology was. I am amazed that this argument is not understood by many people at all. Maybe I should write a very lengthy tract explaining it. If QCOM charged 400% royalty, the amount bid for spectrum would have been much less than was bid, as the costs would have been far higher. Simple!
QCOM said all along that they'd be charging the same as they normally do. They explained that they would NOT be taking part in any dopey 5% cap. There was no surprise. I think those involved with W-CDMA were also CDMA2000 licensees, so they would have known full well what the price would be even though there were non-disclosure agreements all over the place.
It has always been low, single figures. That was public information for a decade and more. That obviously means less than 6%. From other sources of information, we have also learned that royalties are in fact generally around 5% other than in sweetheart deals such as Motorola and Nokia scored in the early days and China got for in-China use [with 7% for out-of-China use and with ASICs also bought] and Texas Instruments got in exchange for heaps of patents QUALCOMM needed.
It is very disconcerting that you as a friendly lawyer don't see this argument as being plain, obvious, indisputable and a slam dunk. Opposing lawyers, judges and juries have no hope in hell of getting to grips with, or accepting, the arguments. Even if they don't have hideous bias, they are likely to find against QCOM.
Mqurice |
