<Qualcomm can't afford to let this run its course.> Yes I can. In fact, I want it to run its course. Judge Strine seems a reasonable and intelligent bloke. I'd like to see him earn his pay and justify his position by handling the case and deciding on law.
I don't want to cower before a capricious, arbitrary, venal and stupid legal system which is so illogical that it's a flip of a coin which way legal decisions go. I want to see the legal system on which my livelihood depends stand up and be counted as worth something other than a dumb neighbourhood bully forcing people to somehow settle their differences OUTSIDE courtrooms.
Of course its good to settle differences outside courtrooms and that is always my intention. I do not like to deal with anyone who will involve me in court processes. If they are not virtuous, reasonable, considerate, honest and at least trying to operate in a legal sensible way, then they are not worth dealing with other than at arms length on a cash before delivery basis. I would like to kick Nokia off the list of licensees.
Assume the FRAND cartel is a LEGAL price-fixing, ring-fencing, anti-competitive conspiratorial oligopoly, Unfortunately we therefore have to treat with Nokia and get ourselves all icky and waste a fortune in the process. So, let's be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Little licensees shouldn't have an unfair licensing burden. In fact, because of their poor economies of scale, they should be given a LOWER rate than the bigger licensees which have greater market share, to enable them to compete on an equal footing.
The intention of FRAND is to create a fair environment, not to give big bullies the upper hand.
We should also have an up-front licensing fee to reflect the cost of dealing with the licensee. The cost of dealing with Nokia has been vast. That should be paid for in the upfront licensing fee, or built into a royalty rate and there should be a profit in that amount, not just the cost of dealing with them - just as we expect a profit on our R&D expenses.
Pleasant, nice, polite, appreciative, honest, straightforward, trustworthy, unlitigious, licensees who are easy to deal with and who report their sales properly so that we don't have to bother checking them should get a low sign-up fee. The sign-up fee should also reflect the market share of profits and of revenues whih the licensee enjoys.
So, Nokia, a hagfish slimeball from way back, who cost us $billions in actual cash on legal stuff and opportunity cost in loss of focus on the real work, and who have vast market share and profits, and who are dishonest, untrustworthy, hard to deal with, litigious, and generally a hagfish, should be kept at arms length, handled with a 40 foot barge pole, charged $10bn as a sign up fee and the highest percentage royalty of all licensees. That would create a fair, non-discriminatory, reasonable and competition-supporting market place.
As shown by Nokia's huge economies of scale, profits and market share, they should NOT be given even more advantage over the little licensees by way of reduced royalties, even if Nokia was a pleasure to deal with, from start to finish.
I want to see Judge Strine stand up and be counted. Let's see his legal opinions laid out for all to see. Let's see what the USA government is going to do about patents, free enterprise, capitalism, FRAND cartels, and whether "reasonable" means "as set by government department" as per the USSR system of Kremlinized price control, or whether it's the free enterprise concept of "what the market will bear". Let's see how Qualcomm's handling of patents and legal issues has been. Let's stand up and be counted too.
Let's take it to the mat and Judge Strine.
Mqurice, |
