The "method" is not unique to the wireless market. In fact, it has existed since the inception of cellular, constituting the "custom and usage" of the industry for decades. What's unique is that Qualcomm has two separate business under one roof - QCT and QTL. In order to seed the CDMA market initially, they also made devices and sold infrastructure, later divesting themselves of those money losing businesses.
QTL licenses were drafted in ways to defense against the future effects of potentially narrowing "patent exhaustion" common law interpretations, which have in fact occurred, as the balance of power has shifted more favorably to patent implementers. (That pendulum of power can and will swing both ways.)
IDCC is a pure IP company, sells no chips, and charges device based royalties. Qualcomm could always separate QCT from QTL, if the selling of chips were determinative of the propriety of charging industry practice device level royalties, but so far has not found it necessary. Ericsson sells handheld devices and infrastructure products, yet charges device level royalties for its SEP and non-SEP IP. Samsung sells chips, infrastructure, and devices, yet charges device level IP royalties.
As Jeff Vayda has noted, this is all about money, and the greatest beneficiary of the IP, Apple, who has become the wealthiest company on earth through wireless enablement, is the squawking goose on the issue. Their objective is both avaricious and anti-competitive, seeking to slow the wireless evolution trajectory, and impede the ability of smaller competitors without Apple's R&D budget to thrive. |
