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 (148863)	9/2/2018 2:06:05 PM
From: JeffreyHF	1 Recommendation Recommended By recycled_electron Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

Patent exhaustion became an issue with "bad law" after QTL's original licensing, so I assume they modified their practice accordingly.

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (148863)	9/2/2018 5:20:16 PM
From: Wildbiftek	6 Recommendations Recommended By DanD Lance Bredvold lml NozRydr recycled_electron and 1 more member Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

I respect Mueller for his obsession with and oft times clever interpretation of procedings, but his blog stinks of his weaselly narrative and his distortion of Qualcomm's chances at legal victory. Mueller argues that a chipset manufacturer license would exempt customers from needing a license due to patent exhaustion, but part of what he misses is that many of Qualcomm's SEP patents are in fact not implemented in the baseband alone but implemented in the cell towers. This also doesn't preclude them from taking into consideration the value of patents rather than tying them raw costs of implementation. What Qualcomm provides on an IP level is a network solution rather than chips themselves. I think another perfectly valid way that they could assert their IP should Koh misinterpret their contractual obligation is to charge based on the software drivers loaded by the end customer for each implementer's baseband. This software would more faithfully and directly represents the algorithms described in their SEPs needed to communicate with cell towers; these are more closely tied with their IP than the basebands themselves which are computers whose architecture facilitate the calculations related to implementing the IP. I think Qualcomm would have a harder time enforcing their licensing revenues under this model, but they could still go after big players like Apple for what's rightfully theirs, and it would be perfectly consistent with existing software licensing models which often give discounts to certain classes of customers like students for the exact same software.