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: Wildbiftek who wrote (146747)	6/1/2018 9:56:16 AM
From: Jim Mullens	2 Recommendations Recommended By JeffreyHF VinnieBagOfDonuts Respond to of 196740

Wildbiftek, re: QCOM “rebates”................................................ “...they further signed an agreement with Qualcomm once they supplied modems from them which includes rebates on their royalties...… QCOM signed several agreements with AAPL as they have with their other licensees. However, it is my understanding that QCOM does not consider payments to AAPL under their Business Cooperation and Patent Agreement (BCPA) as rebates to royalties paid by the CMs. QCOM considers the BCPA as a separate and distinct contractual agreement, similar to cross-license agreements with other licensees that in effect off-set royalty payments. Snip from previous SI discussion>>> .http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=31604173 One of the core issues the QCOM attorneys must confront is dispelling AAPL’s contention that QCOM’s payments to AAPL were royalty rebates, since as such it would likely appear that they were in essence tied to the FRAND license rates / terms QCOM (and AAPL) had with the CM’s manufacturing the iPhones. Thus, the “rebates” would give the appearance that the FRAND rate structure, which is supposed to be applied on a non-discriminatory basis (equally ) to all parties, was violated. QCOM’s approach appears to treat the FRAND rate structure as separate and distinct from other contractual agreements, i.e. their Business Cooperation and Patent Agreement (BCPA) with AAPL. In other words, strictly applying the rates and terms incorporated into a FRAND license to all licensees and defining the other contracted agreements as separate and distinct from the FRAND license itself. Over the past year or more, it’s been embedded into our heads via the various writings on the subject that QCOM has been in violation of FRAND because it has treated its licensees differently, and in AAPL’s case their royalties have been lower because of the “royalty rebate program” per AAPL’s narrative. However, we’ve also read over the years that companies that have relevant cellular IPR net out (off-set) their royalty cost via cross-license agreements, and that appears to be widely accepted and justified. It is my understanding that those agreements have been and are separate from the FRAND license itself. So, there must be some form of precedent there. I understand another example is a reduction in cost agreement for early adopters, those that take the added risk of moving before the herd. So, there appear to be at least two examples of separate contract agreements for reducing the cost of using QCOM IPR that has been accepted industry wide. Thus, why should it not be argued and favorably accepted that an agreement (BCPA) assuring (paying for) “patent peace” (and other conditions) is a legitimate undertaking especially against a dominant, powerful, recalcitrant entity that has over the years demonstrated its bullying tactics (including litigation / intimidation, etc) in suppressing its suppliers? And, why should that not also be considered as separate and outside the bounds of the FRAND royalty bearing license itself? AAPL and others are arguing that the FRAND license and other contracted agreements should be considered in total (bundled) as defining what is and is not non-discriminatory / discriminatory, but one can see that it is not that clear cut as other vital considerations / issues enter into the equation.