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: Qurious who wrote (148933)	9/5/2018 2:06:52 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 197227

Although "total handsets would drop some," it might be more accurate to say that total APPLE iPhone sales might drop. And you are right about that. Meanwhile, Apple smartphones and tablets have the highest profit margins in the entire sector – so high that they could easily reduce profits or pay more royalties (more than nothing at the moment) and remain the most profitable in the industry. No sympathy for Apple is needed, or warranted. Art

To: Qurious who wrote (148933)	9/5/2018 2:39:00 PM
From: slacker711	1 Recommendation Recommended By lml Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197227

Qualcomm won the appeal, but the limited excluded order that was originally handed down absolutely took the public interest into account. I dont think it can be any more expressly stated than the bolded part below. They attempted to balance the interests of the patent holder and the public. I expect the same if Apple is found to be infringing one of Q's non-SEP patents by the ITC. usitc.gov The Commission is issuing a limited exclusion order that bars the importation of Qualcomm's infringing chips and chipsets and circuit board modules or carriers containing them. In addition, the exclusion order bars the importation of certain handheld wireless communications devices, such as cellular telephone handsets and personal digital assistants ("PDAs"), that contain Qualcomm's infringing chips and chipsets. The exclusion order does not apply to handheld wireless communications devices that are of the same models as handheld wireless communications devices that were being imported for sale to the general public on or before the date of the order, June 7, 2007. However, the order does bar the importation of new models of handheld wireless communications devices that contain Qualcomm's infringing chips and chipsets. Thus, the order "grandfathers" models of handheld wireless communications devices being imported into the United States for sale to the general public on or before June 7, 2007. The Commission is also issuing a cease and desist order that prevents Qualcomm from engaging in certain activities within the United States related to the infringing chips. The Commission reached its decision after careful consideration of the appropriateness of an order excluding from importation the "downstream products" that is, handheld wireless communications devices incorporating the infringing chips. The Commission found that an order excluding all downstream products would impose great burdens on third parties, given the limited availability of alternative downstream products not containing the infringing chips. However, as the infringing chips are not imported in significant quantities outside of downstream products, the Commission also found that an exclusion order covering only the chips and chipsets, and not downstream products, would afford little or no relief to the patent holder, Broadcom. The Commission determined that barring importation of downstream products, with an exemption for certain previously imported models, will substantially reduce the burdens imposed on third parties while affording meaningful relief to the patent holder. The Commission found that, while exclusion of all downstream products could adversely affect the public interest, particularly the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, and U.S. consumers, the exemption for previously imported models sufficiently ameliorates this impact such that the orders should be issued.

To: Qurious who wrote (148933)	9/5/2018 3:04:16 PM
From: slacker711	2 Recommendations Recommended By Lance Bredvold ryhack Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197227

All that argues for is maybe they should not get into 5G at all. Not for the judge to give them a pass on infringement because "sob, sob, I only got one customer, you honor." A significant number of the 1400 pages of testimony cover how an exclusion order would impact Intel and what that might mean to US competitiveness in 5G. I think it is generally BS, but it is up to Q's lawyers to convince the judge. It was taken as a baseline assumption that overall competitiveness in 5G was in the US interest. I agree there would be a substantial impact on Apple, which Apple can fix easily by agreeing to terms. Consider the people who would buy an iphone, but now can't. If they must have a new phone (old iphone broke) and they absolutely refuse to buy a non-iphone, it's their choice. If they want a new iphone as an upgrade, but now they defer instead of buying a nice Pixel, it's also their choice. Total handset sales would drop some. But so what? The only lost sales would be iphones, as it should be, because those phones infringe on somebody's patents and Apple refuses to pay! The rest of the industry and the public would be just fine. What am I not gettign here? They didnt talk much about the broader impact of a broad iPhone exclusion order during the hearing. My assumption is that is because the current units that would be subject to the exclusion order are the 2017 models and so Apple could simply use more Q enabled iPhones. The only real impact would be to Intel. However, I would expect that a potential exclusion order against 2018 iPhones would see many third parties weigh in about the impact. The retailers, accessory makers, all of the mobile operators, the other US semi vendors that supply the iPhone and app developers would all argue vociferously against a ban. FWIW, the USITC is mandated to consider the public interest when considering an exclusion order. usitc.gov Under the statute, if the Commission finds a violation of section 337, it will issue an exclusion order to keep violating products out of the country (and may also issue cease and desist orders to violators), unless it finds an order should not be issued after considering the effects of a remedial order on: the public health and welfare; competitive conditions in the United States economy; the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States; and United States consumers.