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 (68195)	8/24/2007 6:11:10 PM
From: Q8tfreebe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197507

"as a condition to being granted a royalty-bearing license to the intellectual property essential to practice the standard, Broadcom would have to give back a royalty-free license to a much broader sweep of Broadcom intellectual property, including IP covering features and functions entirely unrelated to the standard." Eric - Is that any worse than what Broadcom is now attempting to do with QCOM by offering to swap a couple non essential power management and video patents in exchange QCOM's entire patent portfolio WITH royalty free pass through rights. It seems David Dull (and Eric L) speaketh with forked tongue.

To: Eric L who wrote (68195)	8/24/2007 6:11:25 PM
From: Q8tfreebe	Respond to of 197507

"as a condition to being granted a royalty-bearing license to the intellectual property essential to practice the standard, Broadcom would have to give back a royalty-free license to a much broader sweep of Broadcom intellectual property, including IP covering features and functions entirely unrelated to the standard." Eric - Is that any worse than what Broadcom is now attempting to do with QCOM by offering to swap a couple non essential power management and video patents in exchange QCOM's entire patent portfolio WITH royalty free pass through rights. It seems David Dull (and Eric L) speaketh with forked tongue.

To: Eric L who wrote (68195)	8/24/2007 10:45:46 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 197507

" [ed: "Appropriate"] is the word David Dull used when he testified in public "Hearings on Single-Firm Conduct" being conducted by the US Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice." I would be suprised if more than a handful of people here have much regard for either the words or the person of Mr David Dull.

To: Eric L who wrote (68195)	8/25/2007 4:01:20 AM
From: Raglanroadie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197507

I have posted on this subject before and if I received a satisfactory answer forgive me for not remembering it. "insisting that, as a condition to being granted a royalty-bearing license to the intellectual property essential to practice the standard, Broadcom would have to give back a royalty-free license to a much broader sweep of Broadcom intellectual property, including IP covering features and functions entirely unrelated to the standard." Since BRCM has no essential patents in the standard I figure the conversation would follow as such: Q says, well hello, so you want a license. Okay, our starting position is you buy one you buy them all and that with nothing to offer your rate is roughly 5%. BRCM says hell no, 5% is too much I want to pay less. Q answers by saying that if you want to pay less you have to give us something in return. - You can give us access to some patents for X consideration - or, you can give us access to all patents for X+ - or, if you want you can give us pass through for X++ BRCM then says well we want to pay less but we don't want to give you anything since we don't have any standards related patents. After choosing not to license Q's patents at full freight they claim Q is insisting BRCM give them access to their non related but ITC actionable patents due to their choice for X+ thus voluntarily throwing them into the equation. Since the royalty rates vary across licensee's and some do while others do not offer pass through rights I must conclude Q is flexible in their terms and do not in fact insist on condition a one way street. Since most do not have many patents with which to barter with they probably settle for a minimum consideration for access and pass through rights. BRCM would like for the world to believe that Q demands access to so called non related patents that they should be able to exert against Q. It seems to me that if they are ITC actionable then Q has every right to say that in order to get 5% less X, X+, or X++ we insist upon access to them.