SI
SI
discoversearch

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: slacker711 who wrote (148909)9/4/2018 4:43:57 PM
From: Qurious1 Recommendation

Recommended By
lrnin

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 197212
 
Adjudicating Q's FRAND obligations is one thing. However, non-payment of royalties but continued use by Apple and its ODMs of Q's SEPs is another. Q has no FRAND obligation to permit that. Where is the interest of the industry in that?

Plus, I keep reading references to interest of the industry and/or consumers re injunctive relief re putative infringement of (at least a couple of) Q's non-SEPs. What has that got to do with considerations of granting or not granting of injunctive relief?



To: slacker711 who wrote (148909)9/4/2018 5:17:00 PM
From: JeffreyHF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 197212
 
To be accurate, Slacker, I have never referred to the "impact on the industry", but rather have referred to the "custom and usage" within the industry. The latter is evidence of the industry's accepted normal pattern and practice over decades of commercial SEP licensing.

Btw, what mobile communications industry would exist without Qualcomm enabling R&D?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News