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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 181.30-0.5%3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Raglanroadie who wrote (62395)4/11/2007 2:48:15 AM
From: Peter J Hudson  Read Replies (9) of 196917
 
I have owned QCOM since 1992 and read the SI threads since 1996. I'm sure that I'll experience some negative reactions for this post, but oh well. I think the thread is in a combination of denial and group think. The idea that Nokia's case and the group of 6 complaint to the EU have absolutely no merit is rather close minded. I think there is a legitimate fairness question with QCOM IPR policy.

Take a low end WCDMA phone built on a TI chipset. QCOM gets a 4% royalty for use of its CDMA IP. Take the same phone and add high resolution camera, MP3 player and PDA functions for double the price. QCOM still demands the same percentage on the wholesale price. Did QCOM's IP add the additional value to the phone?

I think it is legitimate to ask if it is fair for QCOM to receive the same percentage royalty no matter what additional functionality is added to the phone.

I have a financial stake in QCOM prevailing in these legal battles. I certainly don't believe that Nokia is champion of consumer interest, but we are deluding ourselves if we think that our opponents are undertaking this battle frivolously.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext