Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: voop who wrote (9835)	4/15/2001 3:29:41 AM
From: Caxton Rhodes	Respond to of 196740

29% of cost of GSM handsets is IPRs...Hmmmm

To: voop who wrote (9835)	4/15/2001 7:57:11 AM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 196740

29%-- from June 2000 article announcing the formation of the "3G Patent Platform Partnership" of operators and equipment manufacturers who were closed out of effective competition by the GSM IPR cross-licensing setup, which was also a restrictive collusion. This one masquerades as a harbinger "mechanism of collective technology transfer". The company's partners hope to cap future technology royalty payments at 5% of product costs. Currently, royalties account for as much as 29% of mobile system costs.... As well, the patent-licensing cooperative could help avoid protracted disputes such as that between equipment manufacturers and Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, California, a former hand-set manufacturer that decided to specialize in licensing key technology to other vendors instead, but at a price. totaltele.com (Originally non-profit) The 3G Patent Platform will provide commercial services within a new service company, 3G Patents Ltd, to be launched in spring 2001 following approval from the major competition authorities. The initial service offering will provide for the evaluation of patents, a declaration of their essentiality against a defined standard (basically assigns a $$$ value to the technology since there is no other known way of implementing the standard) and a licensing mechanism. 3gpatents.com Commercial Launch of 3G Patents Ltd Approaching Fast Since the 3G Patent Platform was originally defined by 41 major international competing suppliers and operators, 3G Patents Ltd cannot be launched until the major competition authorities such as the American Department of Justice, the European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission have given the go ahead. The innovative nature of the 3G Patent Platform licensing approach is causing the competition authorities to review their current attitude towards collective technology transfer mechanisms. Based on information made available from the competition authorities, the launch of 3G Patents Ltd is planned for spring 2001. On 14 December 2000, the Japanese Competition Authorities approved the 3G Patent Platform 3gpatents.com

To: voop who wrote (9835)	4/17/2001 8:16:47 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196740

basically a Eurocentric polemic against essential IPR and Qcom

To: voop who wrote (9835)	4/17/2001 9:04:33 AM
From: Dennis Roth	Respond to of 196740

A good academic study of the role of IPR in the development of GSM. Very useful background material and historical data. It shows Motorola was smart in actively developing its GSM IPR and aggressively defending it. IMHO, it supports the idea that Qualcomm is smart in aggresively defending its IPR. Thanks for the link. Most definately not a polemic is any accepted meaning of the word. If there are any barbs in the treatise, they are reserved for Motorola.

To: voop who wrote (9835)	4/17/2001 9:57:44 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196740

Thanks for the article. Very interesting to find that MOT followed a very aggressive patent strategy with respect to GSM while ERICY was lackadaisacal. Obviously, ERICY had a lock on GSM infra. So long as it was not paying royalties, and concentrating on its field, ERICY did fine. The Q is acting much like Motorola did when GSM was implemented. The distinction, of course, is that Q refuses to join any Cabal. I wonder about the anti-trust implications of the Cabal's strategy. So long as one was a member, cross-licensing applied, and there was a tremendous cost advantage resulting from not having to pay royalties to a fellow Cabalista. The lower end manufacturers without any IPR to trade for cross-licensing got to pay huge royalties which not only enriched the Cabal but also made the lower-tier guys' costs that much higher, stifling competition in the handset business. I suspect that this, along with marketing savvy, is the reason for Nokia's success, not innovation or technological prowess. Can't be legal. But I'm no anti-trust expert.