SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Qurious who wrote (146638)5/29/2018 3:40:37 PM
From: Wildbiftek5 Recommendations

Recommended By
Fiero
pheilman_
sag
tracyx
VinnieBagOfDonuts

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 196510
 
Just like how Apple branding isn't some amorphous magic that pervades its products? Or a movie maker's films somehow isn't more than the sum of a colored pixel grid flickering at 24 hz?

Qualcomm's patents are more about how the radios are used to transmit specific patterns of signals that better use the scarce common resource that is the electromagnetic spectrum. It is far more analogous to a very specific, very good and very popular song systematically written for each user being transmitted using the radios that has for example the benefit of benefit of allowing individual signals of being distinguished from each other with better total capacity as well. There are highly non-obvious aspects to Qualcomm's patents that make them truly brilliant inventions deserving of the royalty they charge, just as a good songs or movies command a higher premium to audiences.



To: Qurious who wrote (146638)5/29/2018 4:04:03 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Lance Bredvold
recycled_electron
temco2

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 196510
 
Royalties and licensing fees are a form of taxation, designed to promote innovation by giving inventors a temporary monopoly on their new methods of getting things done. You assert that "nobody likes to pay taxes," but taxes in the case of royalties are simply another cost of doing business. If you want to do business with another person's invention, you usually have to pay for it, unless you're as big as Apple. Then you can choose – spend enough to make your own work around or pay to play. Because patents are a limited time monopoly, and accepted as that throughout most of the world, the resulting fees are expected. Given the typical royalty rates charged by others in the industry are at least as high, it is difficult to argue that Qualcomm's rates are confiscatory or even unreasonable.

Some people insist that Apple is a monopolist, in the sense that Apple can apparently charge higher prices for its products and still get away with it. But really what Apple is, and what Apple so aptly demonstrates in its various lawsuits, is a monopsonist, playing suppliers against one another in order to get better prices for the components and related material, including software, that it uses in its devices.

The Apple argument that it should pay only a modest royalty on components or designs that use QCOM intellectual property, is a classic monopsonist position, based on its huge buying power. As the various lawsuits involving QCOM and AAPL reach trial stage, the Apple strategy and accompanying arguments will become clearer to the courts, and juries if need be.

Art