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: Jim Mullens who wrote (146611)	5/29/2018 4:03:25 AM
From: Qurious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196568

Of course Q IP operates in a "network." Of course it should charge a royalty from parties who manufacture and sell parts incorporate its IP. In fact, what it is doing is contrary to this practice. In order to circumvent patent exhaustion, it has to deliberately forego any licensing with parties who do apply its IP (Intel, Mediatek, Spreadtrum, captives etc.) It is not only my opinion that Q's practice of aggregating and bundling SEPs and non-SEPs is problematic. NDRC thought so. The Taiwanese and Koreans thought so. Will our courts also think so? Whether that practice originated with the reviled gsm guild is not relevant to today's challenges Q faces.