dave:
With all due respect, you are awfully loose with your facts at times. Qualcomm has NEVER disclosed the terms of its royalty agreements and NEVER "emphatically stated that 5% is fair" as you suggest.
I am dazzled by some of your gratuitous leaps of logic. You suddenly seem to accept the concept that QC has a defensible IPR position. However, in acknowledging this, you suggest that QC should give ERICY a preferential rate because...uhh...well...gee...they asked for it? Because it's a nice and fair thing to do? Who ever misinformed you about the world being fair? Qualcomm's employees (and investors) has spilt much blood, sweat and tears to get this far...but you want to hand our IPR to the enemy on discounted terms just to be a nice guy? Convergence is worthwhile, but not at any price. If, as the evidence suggests, QC's IPR position can block ERICY's promulgation of a W-CDMA standard through the ITU, then it is Ericsson, not Qualcomm, that has the major business issue.
Qualcomm, and the IS-95 vendor community, already offer a direct sequence spread spectrum (CDMA) product solution whilst ERICY and its European cohorts are, at best, very late to the party. Presumably ERICY wants to deploy a CDMA air interface because it is superior to GSM's current TDMA-based air interface. If QC can prevent ERICY from deploying W-CDMA while (along with Nortel, Lucent, Motorola, Samsung, LG Electronics, NEC et cetera) continuing to evolve and improve IS-95, then one could infer that the Europeans are likely to find themselves at a rather substantial competitive disadvantage. Just so it's clear, this is the substance of Irwin's argument on the recent 3G conference call.
Given this hand of cards, you suggest that QC should reduce its royalty rate by 80%. Really. You suggest that IS-95 "has no support", yet it is being deployed in over thirty countries, is the fastest growing digital standard in history and has a subscriber base exceeding sixteen million. What must be accomplished, and in what timeframe, for CDMA to have "support" in your view?
Instead of worrying about Qualcomm being "locked out of Europe and part of Asia", maybe you should be concerned about ERICY and its European buddies getting shut out of everywhere else. Better yet, why don't we sit back and let the bright minds that perfected CDMA, i.e. Irwin Jacobs and company, negotiate the best deal on behalf of their investors. Isn't it remotely possible that they understand the company's legal position and business opportunity slightly better than some of the counselors-in-training that contribute to this thread :-)
Gregg |
