And what essential 3G IPR did Broadcom get from Zyray Wireless, that required Qualcomm to give Broadcom a better deal than the FRANDly royalty-free agreement it has with sophisticated TI?
Nothing.
I see you haven't read Qualcomm's latest filing in the Broadcom issue, or if you have, not very carefully.
It lays out 4 successive offers that Qualcomm made to Broadcom. Zyray's role is described in paragraph's 61 through 63.
Once upon a time, Zyray was this dinky startup, doing some WCDMA stuff, to whom Qualcomm apparently offered their "standard" FRAND terms. You know, pay 8%/7%/6% of your revenues to us, and we'll give you some of our IP, and you'll give us all of yours, yada yada.
Zyray didn't bite. Instead, Broadcom bought Zyray. At which point Qualcomm sent the same offer to Broadcom (the new owners of Zyray), describing this offer as being FRAND by virtue of being the same offer sent to ZyRay and indeed substantially similar to offers sent to other recent licensees. Therefore, by definition (Qualcomm's definition), fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Broadcom apparently told Qualcomm to get stuffed, and, as described in Para 64, instead suggested that maybe it's IP was worth enough that Qualcomm might want to think of paying a balancing payment instead. Apparently it was a bit of surprise to Qualcomm that Broadcom might have valuable IP. Even more surprising that Broadcom's IP might be even more valuable!!!
The point is not that Broadcom acquired massive IP from Zyray as you seem to suggest. The point is that Qualcomm offered licensing terms to ZyRay which they characterized as FRAND, and these same terms to Broadcom, which they also characterized as FRAND, despite Broadcom's IPR position being equal to Zyray's IPR plus Broadcom's IPR. In other words, valuing Broadcom's entire IPR portfolio at $NIL. The unreasonable nature of which has subsequently been crammed down their throat by the courts.
The point is that just because a deal was FRAND enough for Zyray, or some other contemporaneous Qualcomm licensees, doesn't make those same terms FRAND when applied to Broadcom. Or anyone else for that matter. Possibly including Nokia.
Pretty much a slam dunk, that one. Particularly as Qualcomm's own legal beagles set it forth in writing for everyone to read.
Blam. Toe surgeon, anyone? |
