C2, the GSM/GPRS/EDGE cases are not lost. There are several of them. One might succeed on the legal lottery principle, even though the courts [judges and juries] are loaded against QCOM [from a socialist point of view on the value of patents and ownership of property].
Nokia knows damn well they are using them. "Disclosure" is meaningless because Nokia knew many years ago that QCOM owned said intellectual property and claimed to have bought a job lot and that they thought they could use them in any of their activities, even if CDMA was not included in the device.
We internationally renowned legal eagles don't go for olive branches. We go for victory. Complete victory.
Nokia is on the ropes. Their whining like a fleet of Koreans about the size of royalty is completely absurd now that royalties agreed by Broadcom and Verizon, and by QUALCOMM [declined by Broadcom] are higher than QUALCOMM's standard rate for only a few trivial plops [poxy little obvious patents].
As proven by Nokia's vast share of the cellphone/cyberphone market and their even greater share of profits, QCOM royalties have NOT be an inhibition to their success. To make it fair for Nokia's competitors, Nokia should be charged even MORE than the standard rate. Nokia should pay a greater share of R&D development costs just as wealthy people pay higher tax rates as they benefit more from community protection of private property than do the impecunious [long-standing socialist principle]. Or, if not more, they should pay at least the highest rate.
Further, the royalties for W-CDMA are 12%. QCOM's share of that is 5.5% at most and likely 4% and QCOM provides the engine transmission, wheels, steering and brakes for W-CDMA. Nokia provides one variety of headlights [any number of styles could have been included but the cartel was about carving up the market, price fixing and monopolizing the consumers' cash].
Further still, obsolete GSM gets 16% for a simple technology which delivers a tiny number of bits per second per hertz bandwidth compared with CDMA which can pour petatrillions of phragmented photons through the same slice of spectrum. It's like 16% for a bicycle compared with 4% for a Ferrari. They are NOT the same thing.
That's why spectrum bids went to $100 bn for the 3G spectrum in Europe = CDMA is vastly more efficient and valuable than GSM. The price of something reflects the value to customers, NOT the cost of production of the object. Competition usually results in prices ending up at the cost of production plus some profit.
But in the introductory phases of technology, until patents expire and competition gets into gear, the prices are of course, and should be, what the market will bear, not some "reasonable return on investment", which is the absurd thinking we often see in discussions about what royalties and prices "should" be. Even QUALCOMM has used that argument, which is crazy.
Nokia should be charged what the market will bear. As shown by Broadcom in their agreement with Verizon and the GSM Guild in their royalties on GSM, and W-CDMA, anything less than 50% for QUALCOMM's patent wall is a joke.
The standard of what is FRANDly has risen way beyond QCOM's absurdly cheap 3% or so [which I guess Nokia is paying].
No olive branches for Nokia. Hire swarms of lawyers and prosecute them in more venues. Defend QCOM property everywhere. Demand the market rate for QCOM intellectual property.
Nokia and the GSM Guild invented hostility, and slimeball tactics last century. That's the game they chose. That's the game to play. QCOM is not being hostile defending our intellectual property in court. I want MORE such action, not less. Courts and politicians are for protection of private property. That's their function. It's only in sick societies going down the gurgler where they are used to steal private property and enforce laws resulting from the chimpanzee nature of most humans.
Nokia is going to lose the argument on what is a reasonable price for the vast armarda of QCOM patents. They are likely to lose at least a couple of the GSM/GPRS/EDGE misappropriation arguments [multiple venues so at least one jury or judge will see the light].
All indications are that when the crunch comes, all the cases will go away and Nokia will grab the very, very good deal they managed to wring out of QUALCOMM in the early days when QUALCOMM was struggling to make inroads. Nokia has already got an unreasonably good deal and is ruining the other handset makers and dominating the market in a monopolistic way, leveraging their market share to take even more, squeezing suppliers to chance far less than they do competitors.
Nokia won't risk losing their huge advantage by being greedier still. They know they have got a great deal and they will cave in. Unfortunately, I assume that QCOM will be stuck with the previous deal. I would prosecute cases that Nokia has abrogated the agreement and therefore a new agreement should be made.
Nokia obviously has NOT intended to continue with the agreement, though QUALCOMM is sensibly testing that by arguing that Nokia has agreed to continue the agreement by knowingly and willfully continuing to use QUALCOMM patents. Nokia has claimed that the old agreement is not satisfactory, and has breached the terms of it, so they have abrogated the agreement. Therefore a new one is required, acceptable to both parties.
QUALCOMM's new price should be based on the new standard of Broadcom and Verizon and as turned down by Broadcom in the case of QUALCOMM. And on the W-CDMA rates. And on the GSM rates for bits per second per hertz - not just a simplistic 16% for a patent. The price should represent the value created to customers, NOT the cost of production of the invention, or by counting patents. GSM was extremely successful at a low bit per second per hertz rate at 16%, so QUALCOMM's huge patent wall which delivers about 40 times as much as GSM and ALSO delivers high speed mobile cyberspace, not just a voice or text message, should be worth at least 40 times as much as GSM and more like 200 times as much.
The value of mobile cyberspace is enormous though that value has not yet been recognized by other than early adopters. QUALCOMM's phragmented photon technology is the most effective way of delivering that mobile cyberspace in wide area networks, though some OFDM competition is getting under way and Wi-Fi is highly successful in short range.
Mqurice |
