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: JeffreyHF who wrote (148864)	9/2/2018 6:28:10 PM
From: VinnieBagOfDonuts	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197247

Thanks, Jeffrey. I now see the issue with licensing competing chip manufacturers is exposure to patent exhaustion claims that could be brought by OEMs/CMs who obviously would love to pay 0. As part of some future possible settlement, would there be a representation that Qualcomm could make to address the FTC's concern about not licensing competitors? Something like "Qualcomm agrees to not enforce its SEP rights against any interim implementers, including chipset competitors, unless or until there were a license dispute with the downstream final sale implementer, where the royalty rates attach and become due." Obviously, great care needs to go into the wording, especially the definition of interim implementer, but it seems to me both sides could go into a room and come out with wording acceptable to all. Shouldn't competitors (and by extension, the FTC) prefer incorporating SEP patents w/out giving any consideration with a conditional guarantee of not being sued vs. negotiating a FRAND license to pay for Q's SEPs and/or give access to their own patents?