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: Qurious who wrote (146725)	5/31/2018 4:17:56 PM
From: Jim Mullens	2 Recommendations Recommended By JeffreyHF VinnieBagOfDonuts Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196568

Curious, re: QCOM IP / royalty business model................. If the issue of how much royalty is fair is supposed to be based on how much of the IPs under license is actually used by a licensee, then we'd have a huge problem on our hands today. In fact, is that not the exact point of Apple's (and others') complaints against bundling? By bundling Q is forcing licensees to accept IPs which they may or may not use. Worse, it is not clear to them that those patents are even valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) If the issue of how much royalty is fair is supposed to be based on how much of the IPs under license is actually used by a licensee, then we'd have a huge problem on our hands today. >>>>>>>>>> Per the above, you’ve essentially numerated the basic problem in your – license at the modem level. The modem itself accounts for <10% of QCOM’s cellular IP. Is it logical / fair for the modem supplier (or other component suppliers) to bear the burden of the other 90% that not practiced entirely with the modem ? I think not. 2) By bundling Q is forcing licensees to accept IPs which they may or may not use. Worse, it is not clear to them that those patents are even valid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cellular IP portfolio licensing has been the precedent / accepted / standard / legal practice, and the most efficient method for over three decades. It may not be perfect in all respects, but any change from that as we’ve noted would be exceedingly more burdensome, costly, and be even more unworkable in the real world. QCOM itself has more than 130,000 patents itself, both SEP / NSEP. Are we to believe all industry IP holders are now going to be required to painstakingly map each patent to each function in each component, in each device, and infrastructure product? And, then assign a specific IP value to each and enter into royalty negotiations on a patent by patent basis. Are there enough patent attorneys / supporting staff (engineers etc.) and litigators on all sides to support such a costly / time consuming endeavor? If that were to happen, I imagine cellular innovation would rapidly come to a virtual halt, with all hands on deck assigned to this burdensome / unproductive task.

To: Qurious who wrote (146725)	5/31/2018 4:29:30 PM
From: Wildbiftek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196568

In the case of Apple, they signed a contract years ago to use Qualcomm's patents and are free to renegotiate once the contract expires. Qualcomm does allow for discounts if a licensee has an appropriate substitute to one of their patents, but in the case of Apple, they also have so few patents related to cellular technologies, they should be the ones to prove that they have an acceptable substitute to those asserted by Qualcomm.