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: Eric L who wrote (59718)	2/4/2007 1:34:54 PM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197271

And I suppose, Eric, that you support the replacement of "technical merits plus FRAND", by "nationalistic/regional zeal plus economic clout plus political power plus anti-competitive alliances" as the new determinant of what should be adopted by SSO`s? Whose (self) interests will such standards serve, and at what true cost? Frankly, such blatant retaliation against unpopular innovators of superior technologies smacks of RICO and other violations, and is both monopolistic and socialistic.

To: Eric L who wrote (59718)	2/4/2007 1:41:32 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197271

What? Not even a bell or a whistle? <Is that why there is no CDMA component whatsoever in the 3GPP LTE standard from R'8 forward? > This is hilarious EricL: 3g.co.uk Maybe there are better links - that's just the first one and while it's a year old, it's probably about right. 30% royalty for W-CDMA! Wow and ouch!!! And people are whining like a fleet of Koreans about QUALCOMM's derisory 4%. What a joke. Everyone should have seen it coming and gone with the one stop shop CDMA2000 at 4%. You watch Nokia sign up! They'll renew the old agreement, grabbing their option with both hands. The silly 5% cumulative cap begs the question on how that extorquerationately high royalty [CDMA2000 being only 4% it seems] is divvied up among the suppliers. By changing the royalty rules of SETI's standards, they show that their rules were the problem, not QUALCOMM's complying with those rules. If the rules were fine, and QUALCOMM was bad, why change them? Now they are saying they want to pin down patents and royalties BEFORE the standard is set. Life's a giggle. I will be interested to see them argue that QUALCOMM's 4% - 5% royalties are excessive when their 30% royalty rate is looming into view. SETI is searching but getting deeper in the bog. QCOM should RAISE their royalty rate to 30% for new participants [like Nokia]. That would still be FRANDly. It's rather obvious that royalty rates should vary with time and market conditions, keeping them the same for all new participants in a FRANDly way. I'm sure that operators would love to reduce the royalties they pay: <The plan - being driven by mobile operators - is designed to get all relevant patent-holders to sign up to a pre-agreed cumulative cap of approximately 5% for royalties on the cost of all LTE equipment > Each dollar they can get out of the supply chain and cut out of spectrum costs, is a dollar to their bottom line. It is NOT a dollar which will stay with the subscriber, who will continue to pay what the market will bear, which is determined by the capacity of the spectrum and what competing technologies are offering [which will be older, obsolete, and less efficient than the latest LTE offerings]. I don't see why QUALCOMM should transfer money from QCOM to service providers by cutting royalty rates. Rates are already so low that QCOM's cut isn't slowing sales in the slightest. 4% on a $200 device is $8. Cutting $4 of that over the two year life of a handset within a $50 a month bill [$1200 per 2 years] won't make any detectable difference. Would you get excited by $4 off a $1400 handset and service bill over 2 years? That would be half a cent a day. Most people wouldn't be thrilled by that. Mqurice