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: Raglanroadie who wrote (68203)	8/25/2007 6:08:10 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197519

Broadcom was offered a royalty free license of Qualcomm's IPR, in exchange for the same from Broadcom. That's a two way street. Instead, to secure instant market share from the dominant handset seller, they decided to act in concert of action with Nokia, to destroy Qualcomm's business model, and corporate currency. This isn't about "good faith",it's about anti-competitive misconduct.

To: Raglanroadie who wrote (68203)	8/25/2007 3:13:07 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197519

Flexibility in Negotiations: Getting to a "Fairly Negotiated" Win-Win Roadie, << I have posted on this subject before and if I received a satisfactory answer forgive me for not remembering it. >> Perhaps you should forgive ME. Actually I haven't responded, even though I started to and there are a combination of several reasons for that ... 1. Time constraints and (rightly or wrongly) prioritization of responses to others and construction of posts to other boards, golf, family, etc. Distractions, in other words. 2. Your hypothetical negotiating scenarios don't jibe with what QUALCOMM tells us about their negotiating fundamentals, or claims made in Broadcom filings. 3. The rather rambling nature of a prior post to me that I intended to respond to, started to respond to, but that post contained what I considered to be a rather convoluted statement/question on 'patent ambush' that I couldn't untangle and consequently found it difficult to intelligently respond to. My bad. << 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. >> If you "conclude Q is flexible in their terms and do not in fact insist on condition a one way street" than you are indulging a willing suspension of disbelief regarding statements made about QUALCOMM Inc.'s licensing practices by the President of a company whose CEO advises us that their business model is based on a vision of being the "R&D Aggregator [by being the IPR Aggregator] of the Industry" [the mobile wireless industry]. Steve Altman has stated and I'm paraphrasing (and commenting) here rather than going back and clipping quotes from transcripts of Altman public statements since he was appointed President of QUALCOMM, Inc. or Lupin's statements on QUALCOMM's licensing practices, and hopefully I'm not paraphrasing too liberally or misrepresenting what one or the other has publicly stated. ... -> QUALCOMM has a standard rate for the licensing of its ['cdma' i.e. CDMA + WCDMA + in some cases at least its W-TDMA/CDMA] IPR portfolio. QUALCOMM slides peg this rate at 5% [of the wholesale ASP of subscriber equipment, and they also collect on infra, and on chipsets from some manufacturers although that rate is not clear]. -> QUALCOMM does not net down that rate in consideration of the IPR of others but QUALCOMM acquires (some of) the IP of its licensees in the licensing process. -> QUALCOMM in many cases acquires pass through rights to the IP of others it collects in the licensing process. It is not clear exactly what terminology governs these pass through rights but apparently and at least in some cases it is in the form of a non-assert clause (i.e. Qualcomm's licensee agrees to not assert its IP against other of QUALCOMM's licensees or chipset users. << I must conclude Q is flexible in their terms and do not in fact insist on condition a one way street. >> You can conclude whatever you would like to conclude. I have come to a different conclusion. The conclusion is based on the public statements of QUALCOMM executives (and executives of their adversaries) and what I've extracted from legal pleadings of QUALCOMM and its Broadcom and Nokia pleadings. My conclusion is, as I stated prior [and thinkclear questioned] that QUALCOMM has demonstrated blatant disrespect for the IP of others. I didn't have that opinion 2½ years ago. While litigation and arbitration have their place in IPR disputes, I might add that I have a fundamental distaste for any company that attempts to negotiate by litigation by perpetrating a patent ambush. If I were an emotional investor I'd be out of QCOM today. I'm not, so I'm not. Best, - Eric -