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 170.90

-1.3%

Nov 7 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: VinnieBagOfDonuts who wrote (146715)	5/31/2018 3:36:18 PM
From: Qurious	Read Replies (2) of 196568

>> The problem is the licensing of SEPs which needs to be FRAND. The 50% is NonDiscriminatory but charging the "modem" implementers for all of the SEP IP their part doesn't directly utilize runs afoul of Fair/Reasonable. For example, the competitor modem implementers go to the ITC and argue "Q was previously receiving 'x' for all of the SEP and my part only uses 10% of their IP as they have publicly said, so 50% is too high and should be 5%". In such a scenario, that would be a 90% haircut and how would Q go about collecting that remaining 90% SEP IP and from whom? << If the issue of how much royalty is fair is supposed to be based on how much of the IPs under license is actually used by a licensee, then we'd have a huge problem on our hands today. In fact, is that not the exact point of Apple's (and others') complaints against bundling? By bundling Q is forcing licensees to accept IPs which they may or may not use. Worse, it is not clear to them that those patents are even valid. Or just take the case of the Intel chipset used by Apple. Suppose, Intel implemented only a subset of the IPs practiced in MSM, say, why can't Apple make a similar claim as you highlighted above? Why should Apple pay full-freight if they are not using the entire set of IPs covered by Q's license? As to regulatory scrutiny, I think this improves matters somewhat. Look at it this way, Q should no longer feel obliged to strike special deals/accommodations with this new set of licensees (enabled competitors) the way it had to with key customers under the current model. As to the other issues -- bundling of SEP/non-SEP and aggregation of pass-throughs etc., yes, those issues remain.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next