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 177.78-2.2%Jan 9 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JeffreyHF who wrote (148890)9/4/2018 7:50:21 AM
From: slacker711  Read Replies (1) of 197157
 
Ericsson, Nokia, InterDigital, and other ETSI FRAND contributors agree with Qualcomm's interpretation of FRAND obligations to ETSI.



I am sure that is true now. However, didnt QCT have licenses from these companies at one time?

The early history of Qualcomm's licensing program was that licenses were given at both the handset and modem level. That doesnt necessarily mean that Q was required to do it, but I think it will lessen the argument that history and custom are supportive of exclusively licensing at the handset level.


And either way, it will have no effect on SEP charging on devices and infrastructure, for inventions practiced at those levels, nor on non-SEP licensing. What it will do is create chaos and litigation throughout the supply chain, expense of administration, and turmoil, rather than simplicity and peace. It was the industry who sought consolidated device level royalties, for good reasons.



I assume that any judgement is going to require an interpretation of Q's FRAND licensing obligation. If so, how much will the courts take into account the best interests of the industry?

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