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: scratchmyback who wrote (76161)	4/8/2008 7:22:35 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Respond to of 197226

Was it consistent with FRAND obligations to charge no royalties for hundreds of millions of phones in China, while sending SENDO into bankruptcy? Or, does FRAND become an issue only when confiscating Qualcomm and InterDigital inventions?

To: scratchmyback who wrote (76161)	4/8/2008 7:58:15 AM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 197226

It's not that simple. First, who knows? Then, the Chinese mobile business and political operations and pathways were rife with corruption. The Chinese-manufactured handsets themselves were crap and sold badly domestically, so although the state-owned carriers Mobile and Unicom bought plenty of them, enriching the insiders' families, the subscribers made their decisions and bought the Euro-jv phones. There is nothing here which says exorbitant royalties in excess of the 12% posited by iSuppli didn't exist except for one narrow set within the overall conditions found in China from 1996 or so through 2004. The talk of imposing royalties cited says there was a change in the works. Why would that have been happening? In any event, it's impossible that China went 10:1 GSM on the righteousness and technological superiority etc etc.

To: scratchmyback who wrote (76161)	4/8/2008 8:35:58 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197226

Quartersayer's post had comments like ...holders of GSM patents may propose a 5% charge..., ...time of free use of patents is over for Chinese companies... and ...the major owners of GSM IPR are beginning to charge patent fees... I am kind of surprised that quartersayer got no replies to his post! I think the post pretty much proved my point. An article from four years ago speculating about how much Chinese manufacturers MIGHT now be charged is vastly different than the articles we see actively complaining about Qualcomm's royalties that we see in both the Korean and Chinese press. Of course, the absence of such articles isnt convinvcing proof, but I have yet to hear anybody give a good reason why companies would silently pay billions to GSM IP holders but complain constantly about smaller payments to Q. It simply wouldnt make sense. Slacker