Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 164.53

-0.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JGoren who wrote (27115)	4/15/1999 11:11:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) of 152472

JG - If Samsung is not an ASIC licensee, then Samsung's new chip is entirely proprietary and it will pay no license fee for 3G? I frankly do not know how it would be possible to offer a cdma handset without paying a royalty on the chip IPR; maybe the "subscriber" royalty covers the handset. You are asking the same question as the 'other' lawyer on the thread asked several days ago. Qualcomm has different pieces of IPR, but in fact the pieces that I am most familiar with are operational on the system level. Without them CDMAOne, and probably any other CDMA mobile cell system, is non-functional. Period. This is, IMO, the basis for royalties on subscriber equipment regardless of the source of the ASIC. But in cases where they are using Qualcomm licensed ASIC providers Qualcomm collects additional royalties for what I assume is chip specific IPR. However, being less knowledgable in this area I do not know how hard it is to work around this IPR. Maybe Samsung et al can, maybe not, but in any case I would stake my last cent on the fact that they get large royalties from the handsets regardless of where the ASIC comes from. JMO Clark

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next