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: quartersawyer who wrote (53330)	7/7/2006 6:08:15 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197011

"Minimum Change, Optimal Impact" in the Global Patent Thicket << Eric, I wondered whether you might weigh in on this issue with something other than the patent count strategy developed within the 3GPP >> chapq, Now you know. Best I could do on short notice. <g> If you (or others) had not seen the exhibits at the links I posted, I hope you (some) found them useful. Bear in mind, and pertinent to any discussion of this subject, we are not talking about proprietary technology standards like IS-95, cdma2000 (IS-2000) or IS-856, we are talking about collaboratively developed technology and compatibility standards, and I can't add anything to the voluminous opinions and some occasional good hard fact and analysis provided by the few here who have taken the time to learn something about patent law, and share it here, and as I told you way back when, prolonged discussions of IP matters make my neck ache. << The Program's strategy of royalty distribution based on the "proportion" of patent ownership among the 3GPP declared or judged essentials does not assign relative value to individual patents or families of patents. >> Yes. YOU GOT IT. It assigns relative proportional value to individual patents or families of patents. based on the number of certified essential patents companies hold within the 5 groups or numerous families therof. << It is essentially that simplistic count which you've insisted does not exist. >> Whoa! What does not exist is your interpretation of 'a simplistic count' because it is not the least bit simple, but in that world we are discussing, you are absolutely correct one individual certified essential patent is not worth more than another individual certified essential patent. That does not mean that in adjudication, quality won't enter the picture. Nobody is proposing to "simply count" patents that are declared as essential by companies like QUALCOMM, and InterDigital, that operate patent factories, instead of whole product factories, they are proposing certification of all essential patents and basing there claim on proportionality of valid and certifiable essential patents. Ericsson, Motorola, and Nokia in their renegotiation of licenses with their licensees are negotiating or litigating (as in Ericsson v. Samsung) on the basis of proportionality of essential patents even though they have not yet had them certified. Ericsson, Motorola, and Nokia, whose objective is to maximize royalty inflow to minimize royalty outflow and gain a competitive advantage over their competitors who contributed less to the various phases of 3GSM UMTS (WCDMA) technology development and commercialization. As you know in the ETSI General Assembly Intellectual Property Rights Group (ETSI GA-IPR) right now the group is trying to tighten its FRAND policy going forward and the major carriers lead off (as usual) with a a two part plan designed to enforce a pre-agreed cumulative cap of somewhere between 3 and 5 per cent on the cost of all LTE equipment, as well as an 'ex ante' (beforehand) approach to declaring all relevant patents. A number of vendors, backed by Ericsson, Motorola, and Nokia, have since presented a counterproposal called "Minimum Change, Optimal Impact" grounded in the principles of "aggregated reasonable terms" and "proportionality", which means that when determining what cumulative value should be assigned to patents on a given technology in an end product, licenses required in all the other necessary technologies and overall business conditions should be taken into account and the principle of proportionality means the royalty rate a patent holder deserves is proportional to the share of that patent holder's essential patents on the technology in question. Message 22251370 Good fishing! I'll be golfing. You'll catch more and I'll score better if we don't think about patented IP, or the market. Have a great weekend (all). - Eric -