The first pillar is that nobody has IPR that Qualcomm wants or needs. Qualcomm took this initial stance with Broadcom, and appears to adopt this stance on a FRAND, or at least AND basis. There is an off chance that Qualcomm will need IPR from Nokia somewhere. Again, as the Broadcom case is showing, all it takes is one.
Well....yes....kinda. But we have to be careful to separate Broadcom and Nokia here. Or so I think.
As far as Broadcom goes, it's certainly true that they have created a big headache, but their ultimate damage seems limited. While they've gotten a lot of mileage out of the power saving patent, their stash of ammunition is pretty thin, both in quantity and longevity. They're getting a second shot at the antitrust game, but QCOM has filed counterclaims which, if the Broadcom sideshow doesn't come to an end, should result in discovery that neither Broadcom nor Nokia are likely to welcome. End result? They'll settle somewhere along the lines of the offers that have been made. Under no circumstances will Broadcom get an exhaustive license from QCOM. Spinco would get pulled out before that happens and I would be VERY surprised if it gets that far.
The second pillar is that it is "fair" for Qualcomm to establish a policy whereby everybody gets everything and pays the same. Nokia's challenge is that different manufacturers require different IP, and that one can not compel any single manufacturer to license what they do not need.
This is, of course, Nokia's latest gambit. As you say, the case can be argued, and it will be up to the Good Judge to decide. Indeed. It will be interesting, too, since it's a court of equity. All in all, I think we're reaching the point where high level theories start to matter less and the few moves left to each player start to matter more.
But back to matters at hand. I think the drum is beating louder as we approach end game. Whether it is "fair" or not is always a matter of how you look at it. But one thing that may get in Nokia's way is that there is no clear monetary value attached to their IP - to the best of my knowledge they have not gotten license money out of other handset manufacturers. Thus, what should QCOM have to give them? Why doesn't Nokia go out and actively seek these licenses? I suspect it may be because they might run into some antitrust issues themselves, given their industry dominance. Could QCOM be the only place they can really try to get a leg up, behind "confidential" license terms? Damned if I know.
One other thought...more on the chip vs SULA license. I figure it's likely that among all the patents floating around out there some are practiced solely at the chip level and others are practiced only at the handset level. All QCOM needs is an "essential" patent or two at the phone level to give Nokia a no money license for chips and the usual for handsets. Any handset specific patents Nokia holds, if QCOM doesn't get pass through rights, will have to be enforced by attacking every other player in the business. Not an easy matter when the antitrust folks are lurking in the bushes.... Then again, just an armchair theory by an interested amateur. |
