Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 172.72

-4.4%

Nov 4 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (146640)	5/29/2018 5:06:00 PM
From: Qurious	Read Replies (2) of 196444

Art, are you aware of any other supplier of parts for a handset -- or, for that matter, a PC -- which charges a royalty for its IP based on the construed value of the entire device? Does Intel do that for its cpu's? Does ARM? Does MSFT do that for Windows? Everyone of them also claims IP in the parts it sells. This is how the industry works as far as I am aware. If I am remiss, correct me. Based on what I know from my experience in in this industry, Q is the exception, hence all the problems they've had with regulatory bodies and disgruntled customers. I remind you Apple is not the only one who's taken issues with Q. It is only the latest. I have not invented this issue out of thin air. I am merely here as the bearer/reminder of an obvious problem. As a Q shareholder I wish this were not the case. Whether Apple is, or is not, a monopolist is not the issue here. I don't care. I am not an Apple shareholder. I have never purchased a single Apple product. I cannot stand their -- and their users' -- smugness. But I care, and I worry, about Q's practices because they continue to run afoul on the same issues: (a) bundling of SEPs and non-SEPs; (b) strong-arming of licensees to cross-license their IPs, which Q then sublicenses on a pass-through basis in their bundle; (c) device level royalty calculation. Again, I am not stirring up new issues. These are old, persistent and real issues. Whether you and I agree or disagree, these remain issues/challenges in Q's business model. Anyway, I've said enough. I give up.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next