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: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 3:36:44 AM
From: MarkO7111	Respond to of 196923

The answer is yes they deserve more. All the functions you added are possible because of the software and silicon developed by Qualcomm. If you go to their web site and look at the functionality that the chips have it is amazing. MSM6800 Chipset Solution Overview Generate revenue from profitable 3G multimedia services with in-demand handsets powered by Enhanced Multimedia Platform chipsets. Capitalize on the global demand for 3G products and services with devices enabled by the MSM6800™ solution for CDMA2000® 1xEV-DO Revision A networks. Benefits Maximize 3G revenue potential with multimedia services powered by Launchpad™ over high bandwidth CDMA2000 1xEV-DO Rev. A networks Realize faster market penetration thanks to lower cost multimedia handsets with seamlessly integrated chipsets that reduce BOM costs Profit from 3G devices and services that reuse design efforts to capture tiered markets — from the expanding youth segment to the established enterprise sector Maintain customer loyalty with niche devices that offer increased processing capacity and lower power consumption Meet consumer demand for sleek, large-screen handsets that power highly profitable 3G multimedia Technical Features Supports CDMA2000 1X Rel. 0 and Rev. A, CDMA2000 1xEV-DO Rel. 0 and Rev. A and GSM/GPRS networks ARM926EJ-S™ microprocessor core with memory management unit (MMU) Two QDSP4000™ high-performance digital signal processors (DSP) 225 MHz ARM9™ Jazelle™ Java® hardware acceleration Support for BREW® and Java applications Qcamera™: Up to 4.0 megapixel digital images Qtv™: Playback at 30 fps QVGA Qcamcorder™: Record at 15 fps QVGA Q3Dimension™: Up to 100k 3D triangles/second, and 7M depth-tested, textured and 7M depth-tested, shaded 3D pixels/second fill rate gpsOne® position-location assisted-GPS (A-GPS) solution Digital audio support for MP3/AAC/aacPlus™ Integrated Mobile Digital Display Interface (MDDI) and Bluetooth® 1.2 baseband processor support Support for mobile receive diversity (MRD) solutions for enhanced data throughput and an improved user experience

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 7:06:28 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Respond to of 196923

Peter, have the complainants used a different method for charging GSM royalties outside of their club? Haven`t they also charged a percentage of the wholesale selling price, which yields more to the IPR holders when more expensive phones with greater functionality are sold?

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 7:07:41 AM
From: edwin k.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196923

QCOM should ask more for all that is built in, but does not because it wants the buildout of WCDMA to occur/occur faster. e.k.

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 8:30:34 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 196923

Take a low end WCDMA phone built on a TI chipset. QCOM gets a 4% royalty for use of its CDMA IP. Take the same phone and add high resolution camera, MP3 player and PDA functions for double the price. QCOM still demands the same percentage on the wholesale price. Did QCOM's IP add the additional value to the phone? FWIW, Lars and I have talked a bit about this. I think the test for the worth of Q's IP is made directly in the market place. Message 23387523 More importantly, the complaint before the EU isnt about the extra features that are in handsets, but about the amount of IP that Qualcomm has contributed to the WCDMA versus the CDMA standard. The question is if it is fair for Q to charge the same for WCDMA as they have for CDMA....when it is clear (no matter whose report you use), that they have contributed less to WCDMA than to CDMA. In my mind, the key to this is the fact that Qualcomm was prepared to hold their IP out of the WCDMA standard entirely. The current situation where Q receives the same royalties on both standards was a result of a compromise. Q caved on their demands for "harmonization" including having a single standard based on a chiprate that was a multiple of the IS-95 rate. If you go back to the pre-March '99 posts on the Q threads, nobody expected Qualcomm to get paid the same royalty for both standards. Here is a post from Gregg Powers that I think sums up the situation at the time. Message 7011295 Qualcomm gave up their architectural control over CDMA in exchange for the equivalent royalty rate in both standards. It was a compromise that the EU6 (minus Broadcom) all agreed to when they voted in the WCDMA standard in 2000....and in October '05, those five companies decided it was time to renege on that agreement and see if the EU would help. Slacker

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 8:57:57 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196923

Uh ... a contract is a contract. Are people really surprised that an electronic gizmo (wireless phone) has evolved, and has more "stuff" in it now ? Jon.

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 10:11:40 AM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196923

---> add high resolution camera, MP3 player and PDA functions Using those functions with an Over-The-Air transmission capability is an added benefit. If folks don't want to pay for that capability, they can can always buy (or sell) that stuff without a phone and save a few dollars (or euros). Think of it in terms of making the pie bigger for all or just setting up one's own roadside stand to sell tarts. Do you really think operators see no benefit in having those devices incorporated into their phones? Maybe if Nokia worked harder at getting OTA usage (and chipset integration) of those devices, operators might well see the benefit of paying them for that added value. One could also argue that the devices you noted now sell phones (and OTA data). So maybe, those holding the patents on those innovations should be claiming that they also have a right to royalties on phones. But wait, do those inventions really make the communication functions of a phone more valuable? Hard for me to say. Convergence is a complicated game. It is all about offering adding value. The winner is the one who integrates the most value at the least cost. Royalties should be applicable to ALL technologies that enable the provision of added value. If an MP3 player adds value to the communication capability of a phone, it should get a piece of the phone pie and vice versa. The issue you now raise was first raised with laptops. Given the recent proliferation (at least according to news items) of embedded wireless devices, the capping of royalty value has worked in that venue. We are now getting down to the nitty gritty of handset costing and I'm sure mechanisms similar to those used for laptops will be the basis of resolving those issues. With the pending arrival of Snapdragon based devices, video and other such and 4G services, value applicable to royalty is an important industry issue. It is a pity Nokia (and Qualcomm) don't consider such an industry betterment approach in the PR campaigns circumventing their negotiations. It might just be the out-of-box thinking where they could both prosper and get the train back on the mainline.

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 11:53:20 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 196923

Peter, although QCOM charges a uniform royalty rate, regardless of the extent to which a particular device uses QCOM IP, your question suggests that use of a Nokia formula, as described in the 2004 case between Nokia and Vitelcom, might resolve the problem. In that case, Nokia wanted a variable rate, based on the number of patents used in a particular handset. If Qualcomm adopted the same formula Nokia espoused at that time, the royalty QCOM gets from a high end phone would no doubt be greater than it is under the present uniform rate formula. The Vitelcom case was cited by QUALCOMM as evidence of the inconsistency of Nokia's present position, which is diametrically opposed to the earlier policy. I'd like to see QCOM explore the use of that Nokia formula when the expired (or temporarily suspended?) license is renewed, with Nokia agreeing to pay royalties on all its GSM phones that use QCOM patents. And I'd also like to see an agreement where Nokia covers all QCOM legal costs in conjunction with Nokia's actions. Just a few bargaining points <g>. By the way, I wonder how many besides us on this thread have owned QCOM since 1992. Art

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 12:11:52 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 196923

Welcome back, Peter. Been a long time.

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (62396)	4/11/2007 4:29:47 PM
From: Raglanroadie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196923

Kudos to you for being such an early Q investor. "Take a low end WCDMA phone built on a TI chipset. QCOM gets a 4% royalty for use of its CDMA IP. Take the same phone and add high resolution camera, MP3 player and PDA functions for double the price. QCOM still demands the same percentage on the wholesale price. Did QCOM's IP add the additional value to the phone?" On the surface I can see why some people would draw such a conclusion. However, considering that the devices you mentioned now have expanded wireless capabilities I do think it is fair for Q to receive payment for allowing those devices to be used in a mobile wireless fashion. It is more than fair to ask for gas money when taking someone somewhere.