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: Qurious who wrote (148911)9/4/2018 5:58:48 PM
From: slacker7111 Recommendation

Recommended By
Lance Bredvold

  Read Replies (1) of 197155
 
Adjudicating Q's FRAND obligations is one thing. However, non-payment of royalties but continued use by Apple and its ODMs of Q's SEPs is another. Q has no FRAND obligation to permit that.


This is all going to turn on Q's FRAND obligations. If their contract with the CM's is determined to be FRAND'ly then Apple will have to pay the existing amounts. If that contract is not FRAND'ly then we have no idea what a court might determine to be the appropriate rate.

Plus, I keep reading references to interest of the industry and/or consumers re injunctive relief re putative infringement of (at least a couple of) Q's non-SEPs. What has that got to do with considerations of granting or not granting of injunctive relief?

The case that we are talking about is in front of the USITC. They dont grant an injunction but an exclusion order for infringing devices that are imported into the US. One of the criteria for giving an exclusion order is the impact on the public interest. There were extensive arguments back and forth during the ITC hearing about the possibility of a ban impacting the development of 5G technologies in the US. Intel claimed that they would be forced to drop out of the mobile chipset market entirely if they lost the iPhone slot due to an exclusion order.

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

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News