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 (68210)	8/26/2007 4:12:51 AM
From: Raglanroadie	Respond to of 197563

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in with your thoughts. I understand that people have families, other investments, and hobbies that rightly deserve your full attention. Any time you devote to a question of mine is greatly appreciated. While I need to better understand Q's negotiating fundamentals I have a hard time with BRCM's claims especially given the current environment. I assume that since some licensee's do not grant pass through rights to Q that those rights are conditional and therefore afforded some consideration by Q. Since it is believed that NOK pays something less than the standard rate and MOT once had a royalty sharing agreement I figured that Q's standard rate was the starting point from which adjustments would be made. Likewise, the TXN royalty free deal further highlights to me that Q is willing to vary their terms from 5% to 0%. On point number three all I can say is I am sorry and not surprised by your comment. Without having gone back to find my prior post I have no doubt it must have been convoluted. I can say nothing in defense and should remember to compose more properly constructed arguments. "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]." Maybe that CEO and I have similar problems with communication. While I cannot fault anyone for taking that statement at face value my thoughts tend to drift away from the established players and focus more on the small wannabe competitors who have few patents of their own. It is the aggregation of these smaller players patents that I think Q is probably attempting to highlight. With limited information I know I stand a good chance of being wrong but I really do see Q trying to band together the smaller slivers of the patent pie in order to allow anyone to compete against the entrenched players from 2G. "-> 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." How does this square with NOK paying less than the standard rate and TXN not paying it at all? Is this just accounting speak and if so then I am feeling better about my communication skills. "-> 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." It seems to me that if Q gave no consideration for pass through rights there would be no incentive for companies to grant them since they received nothing in exchange. On the other hand Q by nature wants pass through rights so what is wrong in assuming they take them in to account when calculating the royalty rate? Since I am not a lawyer I have to ask what is a pass through if not a promise by the grantee not to assert them against the customers of the licensor? To me this sounds like two sides of the same coin but then again I am not a lawyer. Back to BRCM. Since the power saving patent is not part of the cellular standard when BRCM says Q wants access to non cellular patents of theirs are they talking about this patent? In addition, why would Q grant a license to BRCM that does not grant Q access to this patent if licensing arrangements are supposed to bring peace to the parties? Is Q supposed to grant a license to BRCM so that BRCM can still file suit against them? "that QUALCOMM has demonstrated blatant disrespect for the IP of others." If Q does indeed grant some consideration for pass through rights then in my book they are respecting the IP of others and not to the contrary as the above statement suggests. Again, I would like to thank you for taking the time address my questions and wish you well. Charles