Art,
I am at a loss re what you see that is not equal between Intel and Q.
Intel customers use Intel CPUs to make PCs. Q customers use Q modem and support chips to make phones. Intel claims a lot of IP (none that's SEP). Q claims a lot of IP (both SEP and non-SEP). Intel deliverables include a lot more than silicon, as does Q. In Intel's case, re its server class CPUs, it deliver a lot of support software to its customers, including tweaked compilers, kernel drivers, highly tweaked versions of high-P Linux etc., etc. Intel charges its customers for the cpus, throwing in the rest "for free." You can bet your life Intel charges what they deem to be the value of the IP produced by their billions spent in R&D. You can bet nothing you get from Intel is for free. Why can't Q do the same, i.e. roll their royalty into the price of their silicon? Throw in the rest for free. Why a separate royalty on the device (handset)? Which leads to this odd arrangement whereby it enables competitors such as Intel, Mediatek, Spreadtrum, Huawei, Samsung et al to make and sell modems on a royalty free basis?
I seems to me it would be a hell of a lot easier to make special deals using my proposed model without running afoul of non-FRAND challenges. If the SEP royalty is rolled into the price of modems, rendering it somewhat opaque, Q will likely have more flexibility to make deals based on volume and other economic considerations. All it needs to do to comply with FRAND under my model is for it charge the same royalty to the few handful of modem manufacturers. |
