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 174.01

-0.3%

Nov 14 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Qurious who wrote (146729)	5/31/2018 6:08:35 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (2) of 196649

Curious, Re: QCOM IP / royalty …………………………………………………….. Sigh squared, as it appears “we’re” (all of us/ some of us ?) are just talking past each other. 1) Fair royalty “ I did not raise the issue of how much royalty is fair based on how much IP is used. “ I believe you have in prior posts, opining that QCOM’s royalty is fair, perhaps not enough. 2) APPL ‘s argument?- AAPL couldn’t care less about the device vs component level. It’s all about cost. AAPL has stated their device royalty bogie--- $4/ unit. And, do you really believe that $13 would be acceptable to AAPL if it was paid via a modem add-on rather than the current method? 3) ".. simply a matter of shifting the royalty collection point from the handset to the chipset.."? There’s simply nothing simple about “the shift” as many of us have numerated in great detail in our prior posts, which you simply decline to address in any meaningful way . .

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next