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: waitwatchwander who wrote (57665)	12/12/2006 7:28:32 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197254

---> Essential needs to be judged at the time of standard setting If this was the case, how would folks who improved a standard get rewarded for their efforts? Ok, I will generalize. The acceptable royalty rate should be judged not on whether it is included in the standard or not (i.e. ETSI's "Essential"). Instead the acceptable royalty rate should be based upon what would be acceptable at the time when there was a choice (i.e. at the time that the patent was incorporated into the standard). It is at that time that the fair market value is, well, fair. After the standard is set and being used with that IP there is now a hostage game. What would the courts do if company x gave a manufacturer 100,000 chips and promised a fair, but undisclosed, price. Then, 1 year later, after the manufacturer had shipped out 100,000 thousand dollar TVs and company x said a fair price was $1000 per chip. Bet company x wouldn't stand a chance in court. And I'll bet the test they would use is exactly the one I proposed - that the fair price should be significantly dependent on what the market said at the time of the chip delivery. Undoubtedly this would all be translated into legal precedents etc, but in the end I'll bet the ruling would be something like what I gave above.