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 (146726)	5/31/2018 4:40:42 PM
From: Qurious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196568

Sigh. We must operate on parallel logic universes. I only proposed an alternative (industry std) place at which to collect the royalty. I did not raise the issue of how much royalty is fair based on how much IP is used. The other poster (Vinnie?) did. And you just did again. Let's consider your argument. If only 10% of Q's IP (I assume both SEP+NSEP) is practiced in the modem, may I ask how much of that 10% is actually practiced in Intel's modem? And how much of the other 90% is practiced in the non-modem portion of the iPhone? If not 100% to both questions, then have you not just made Apple's argument that it has been forced to pay way too much in terms of royalty? Have you not just made the case against Q's practice of bundling IPs? And is that not a far, far greater problem for Q's licensing and business model than what I proposed, which was simply a matter of shifting the royalty collection point from the handset to the chipset? If bundling is found to be the problem, the component v. device based royalty will be trivial.