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: carranza2 who wrote (54987)	9/3/2006 3:53:04 PM
From: matherandlowell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196961

"... but I really don't see any other way possible to deal effectively with the conundrum but to have presumptively neutral parties [the courts] examine all aspects of a specific grievance after each side has presented its best case using the best counsel they can afford" Aren't the courts likely to look for a precedent? Precedent cases are really at the foundation of the judicial tradition. It seems to me that any court would look at the more than 140 contracts QCOM has signed with manufacturers and conclude that the royalty rate has been set by market precedent. In addition, in the case of Nokia, the fact that Nokia agreed to the rate previously would weigh heavily in favor of establishing the existing royalty rate as FRAND. Finally, the GSM royalty rates to new competitors would surely argue that the 5% number is well within a reasonable rate. j.

To: carranza2 who wrote (54987)	9/3/2006 4:09:40 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 196961

I think the use of both F and R in FRAND is surplusage as IMO they mean essentially the same thing. Many other elaborations of the same concept simply use RAND. FWIW, following your discussion with MQ, I think you've both touched upon the distinction b/w fair & reasonable. They are not the same. I think MQ touched properly touched upon the distinction when he posted "'Fair' makes sense to me in that various licensees should be treated equitably." Fairness has to do with equity & is not necessarily objective, but rather in the eyes of the subjective beholder, be an impartial judge or either party on each side of a transaction. What may be "fair" to one party may not be considered "fair" to the other, so a court in equity may determine what's "fair." Reasonableness, IMHO, is a more objective standard that one would expect parties in similar positions to adhere to. Reasonableness, in my view does not always equate to being "fair." In short, I think by adding the "F" term to "RAND," & language of what constitutes "fair" terms, the ETSI chose to adopt what I infer to be a higher standard with respect to the licensing of IPRs among its members. I think its a standard by which a court in equity is compelled to adopt rather than adopting its own standard of "fairness." JMO.

To: carranza2 who wrote (54987)	9/3/2006 6:12:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 196961

C2, the way out of the conundrum is the blood and guts market method. Ditch the governments and standards. Leave people to do anything they like. Don't force everyone in Europe to use W-CDMA or GSM. Standards will evolve rapidly, as in video tapes for example, when one standard defeated another technology and became a standard system. Sure, it's really annoying when your electrical plugs don't fit into American sockets and the system runs at low voltage. But one can always adopt Kiwi plugs and voltage if one likes - just change the system at the factory entrance or at the gate. Language has no standards bodies, though the silly French have some sort of "No Franglais" language guardian body. Which is silly because they can't stop the French using English words like restaurant, cafe, sushi, pinata and glasnost. If a bunch of companies want to get together to make a particular "standard", then they had better agree an actual price for the necessary ingredients as they develop that standard. Sure, it will take a lot of negotiation. That's just the cost of running a market economy instead of a Kremlin-style central planning system. Having been involved in oil industry standards, they mostly seemed a big waste of time and money to me. I was personally responsible for killing one standards committee and the re-refined oil standard [in NZ]. I was very pleased with that. Unfortunately, the NZ government [after I'd gone to Europe] created a standard for petrol [gasoline] and diesel. It then took a committee days, weeks, months and years, and acres of bureaucracy to come up with bad ideas for specfications, which I had handled in a couple of hours along with all my other jobs - the four oil companies would agree a specification so we could swap products. But we also had our own importation specifications. Standards are bad and government standards are awful. Sometimes standards are a good idea, but only if they are in the specific instance at issue. Look how easy CDMA2000 has been compared with W-CDMA. One was sleekly introduced by one company [and licensees]. The other was a shambles and still is. Mqurice