SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jim Mullens who wrote (146731)6/1/2018 3:05:23 AM
From: Qurious  Read Replies (1) of 196650
 
Jim,

1) I did not raise the issue of how much royalty is fair based on how much IP is used.


2) Yes, Apple only cares about the cost per unit. But device based royalty is part of their complaint. If the cost is rolled into the modem, Apple would have no standing in any dispute with Q. It would be between Apple and Intel, and Q and Intel.

3) My use of "simply" in the context does not mean it is simple. It meant "only." In other words, imo the issue of how much royalty is fair based on how much IP is used is an issue independent of where you collect the royalty. Even if we leave things as is, someone could raise this argument. Thus, I did not raise it in the context of the component v. device argument. (But I could have in connection with bundling.) That was what I meant by simply. Sorry if you misunderstood. I agree a switch to modem-based royalty would not be simple at all. I am not even sure how to reset any license Q has in place with any of the modem competitors. It would require wholesale changes, I agree.

Anyway, I assume we can agree we have beaten this poor horse to death. Peace and cheers. Appreciate all vigorous but friendly exchanges on the subject.







Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext