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: 100cfm who wrote (48405)	11/3/2005 10:50:23 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196444

100cfm, Re: BRCM complaint- Apparently BRCM doesn’t like the Q’s current terms, part of which apparently is charging a royalty on the chipset, and then again on the total handset ASP (which includes the chipset). But, >>”McGregor, whose company is also suing Qualcomm in the United States, acknowledged that technology companies often charge different prices to different business customers”. Why not give him what he wants>>> Don’t charge him a royalty on each chip’s ASP . He acknowledges that companies “charge different prices to different customers” so just charge BRCM a flat dollar amount per WCDMA chip for the use of Q’s IPR and work in a volume “discount” to boot. $1.00/ chip- 1 to 10 units sold. $1.10/ chip- 11 to 100 $1.50/ chip- 101- 1,000 $2.00/ chip- 1,001- 10,000 $2.50/ chip- 10,001- 100,000 I understand McGregor is one smart cookie— he ought‘a go for that!!

To: 100cfm who wrote (48405)	11/3/2005 11:25:01 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196444

"Yesterday they admitted they used discriminatory pricing," Broadcom CEO Scott McGregor said at the Reuters Semiconductor Summit, held in San Francisco. What an idjit. When has Q ever said that it didn't? The differences are negligible, according to Q, so they're within its vision of what FRAND ought to be.

To: 100cfm who wrote (48405)	11/4/2005 10:17:19 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 196444

But he said Qualcomm, which owns key patents for a high-speed wireless standard known as W-CDMA, made certain commitments by making its patents part of the standard. "When you become part of a standard you make a commitment to price on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms," McGregor said. The issue here reminds me of the time that Unocal (now part of Chevron) convinced the state of California to adopt standards for reformulated, low pollution gasoline that would make use of patents that were eventually approved for Unocal's process for making reformulated gasoline. A lot of companies, including Exon Mobil raised a big stink about Unocal's tactics. The case went up to the Supreme Court, and Unocal prevailed. Unocal made agreements with several refiners, allowing them to use its process, but these agreements were not uniform. Unocal simply charged what the market would bear. I don't see any legal reason why QCOM must be committed to any set formula for the use of its patents. There is no valid argument here for predatory or discriminatory pricing. The fact that so many individual companies agreed to the licensing and royalty terms argues strongly against the notion of discrimination. The issue before the European court does not resemble the Microsoft issue at all, where one could argue that the Windows operating system had for all practical purposes no competition, and more important, no licensed suppliers apart from Microsoft. The whole issue probably will be resolved long before it gets to trial, simply because the service providers need equipment that contains QCOM IP. The only question is who will supply the equipment, the gang of six, or some other competitors that could make life even tougher for the gang of six. Art