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: VinnieBagOfDonuts who wrote (148866)	9/2/2018 6:39:04 PM
From: JeffreyHF	12 Recommendations Recommended By AlfaNut Bill Wolf Fiero garrettjax GR8FORM and 7 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197248

QTL has already expressly represented they will not enforce their SEP against chip vendors, only device sellers. The MediaTek cross-license, for instance, states as much. Apple wants to force royalties to be capped at some percentage of modem pricing. Even though they bleed most of the profits from the industry, they want more, more, then more. Behind it all is an anti-consumer effort, intended to stifle radio R&D, to slow the technological curve, and to impede competition from the Chinese and South Koreans.

To: VinnieBagOfDonuts who wrote (148866)	9/3/2018 5:20:10 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	7 Recommendations Recommended By bear 164 Jello manning18 matherandlowell NozRydr and 2 more members Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197248

If there were any doubts about licensing phone manufacturers and not chip makers, it should have been settled by the Supreme Court case involving Intel, Samsung, and Quanta (known as the Quanta decision). Intel had a chip licensing agreement with Samsung, and Samsung paid royalties to Intel on chips made by Samsung and sold to others, including Quanta. Intel insisted that Quanta also should pay royalties, but the Supreme Court ruled that Quanta didn't have to, owing to patent exhaustion. Qualcomm had at that time, and continues to have a contractual arrangement with its licensees (e.g., Apple's contract manufacturers), wherein only those licensed by Qualcomm can sell devices that use Qualcomm patents. Chip manufacturers are excluded from the licensing, but they are bound by contract to sell only to Qualcomm licensees. Hence, the licensees may buy chips that use QCOM patents from any source, whether it be MediaTek, Intel, Huawei, or Qualcomm's own chips designed and produced either by Taiwan Semi or Samsung, or others. The Supreme Court decision exempted Qualcomm's licensing agreements from the exhaustion limitation because, as the court noted, it was a contractual arrangement agreed to by both sides. That exemption appears to justify the way Qualcomm licenses the use of its patents. By extension, if a licensee, such as Foxcon, sells devices that use Qualcomm patents to Apple, for eventual sale to the public, Apple pays no royalties whatsoever. Only its contract manufacturers pay royalties, and those in turn are limited to a capped wholesale price. I do not understand why Apple, the FTC, or other regulators seem to think that this method of royalty payment is either unjust or too costly. Art