| | | Qurious, re: QCOM IP licensing............................................
Q has SEPs in the phone/infra which are not practiced in silicon (modem, power control etc.)? I am not challenging you. I am asking because I do not know.
Q licenses all its IP as a bundle. Q portrays this as a great benefit to its licensees. If I were the licensee, I would not be so sure. How much in this bundle (a) are legitimate (i.e. can withstand challenge); (b) do I need? I am not given a choice. Worse, I am often required to cross-license my IP to Q, which it then aggregates and throws into this bundle and licenses to every licensee. !!?? I would not want to stand in court and defend such practice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) Q has SEPs in the phone/infra which are not practiced in silicon (modem, power control etc. .)? I am not challenging you. I am asking because I do not know.
QCOM’s IP **is** practiced a) in the modem itself, b) in tandem within the modem & the device, and c) within the network infrastructure. My understanding is that QCOM’s IP is practiced in all 3G/4G modems, i.e. non-QCOM modems and 3G/4G network infrastructure silicon that QCOM does not produce.
2) QCOM’s IP portfolio –
a) great benefit to licensees?- In the early days QCOM has stated that QCOM’s licensees suggested / requested that their IP be licensed as a bundled portfolio as both a benefit to themselves and QCOM itself. Imagine the administrative cost to all parties of separately drawing up licenses on some 130,000 individual patents and the 100s /1000s added each year.
I imagine portfolio IP licensing was / is common for most larger mobile wireless IP holders, i.e. common industry practice for over three decades. QCOM has over 300 licensees that have accepted the practice as being FRANDly, with AAPL as virtually the only holdout.
3) I am often required to cross-license my IP to Q, which it then aggregates and throws into this bundle and licenses to every licensee.
My understanding is that 3rd party cross-licensing is a benefit to the many smaller device manufactures as it saves them the cost and administrative effort of negotiating separate licenses with many like entities. It’s my understanding that 3rd party cross-licensing is an option and not a requirement and thus provided as a benefit to those companies that so choose. However, for those that choose to participate, it is a requirement that their IP is also aggregated within the 3rd party bundle, not QCOM’s bundle per se.
4) I would not want to stand in court and defend such practice.
Seems to me this has been accepted practice by QCOM and its industry partners including more than 300 QCOM licensees for over 30 years. Over that time QCOM has faced and resolved similar litigation issues.
AAPL for over 10 years had accepted these terms as FRANDly, (& profited handsomely in doing so ) by indirect means working under the umbrella of its Contract Manufactures’ licenses with QCOM. And, AAPL would probably still be operating under such today had it not violated its BCPA with QCOM by underhandedly inducing others (Samsung / FTC, etc) to instigate litigation against QCOM in direct violation of their BCPA. |
|
