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 175.50

-2.1%

1:20 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: sbfm who wrote (195459)	8/29/2025 4:03:07 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	4 Recommendations Recommended By Lance Bredvold manning18 recycled_electron sbfm Read Replies (1) of 196971

The key issue here, I believe, is that any device practicing at least one claim on one patent owes patent royalties to the patent holder. Qualcomm's policy over several years has been to allow free access to chip manufacturers, PROVIDED they agree to sell their chips or related components practicing Qualcomm patents ONLY to patent licensees, with a cap of $400 wholesale price on the resulting devices. What's more, any device practicing a QCOM patent that has been determined to be essential, is subject to FRAND requirements, which apply to all potential OEM's. Along with these requirements, no company can be denied a QCOM license covering essential patents. It seems to me that any OEM desiring to make AR or XR type glasses that use at least one QCOM patent, must pay royalties to QCOM, without exception. Since Qualcomm already has a chip and related components custom designed for glasses, I expect that royalty payments will be forthcoming. If anyone has a different view, I'd appreciate any comments or input. Art

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next