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 : Semi Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Return to Sender who wrote (83340)	5/22/2019 10:35:18 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95609

Qualcomm can charge device makers like Apple and Samsung a licensing fee of up to 5% of the price of each phone they sell. This seems a bit odd. It seems like QCOM should sell a CDMA semiconductor that uses the QCOM patents, and be done with it. Why is QCOM receiving royalties from the device which uses a CDMA semiconductor? What business is it of QCOM what the customer does with the QCOM CDMA semiconductor once they've bought it? If QCOM licenses their patent portfolio to another CDMA baseband maker, they should charge the royalty on that maker's semiconductor sale, but not on the end device. SNDK had some patents on the manufacture of NAND. So they were able to charge Samsung royalty fees for Samsung's useage of those manufacturing patents. But SNDK can't charge EMC when it makes an all NAND storage array......and definitely can't charge EMC a percent of the all NAND storage array's retail price. If a $20 QCOM chip gets put into a $1,000 iPhone or a $250 so so phone, it remains the same $20 chip. Why should QCOM earn a higher royalty because one high end device maker has better branding and better functionality than the other low end device maker? The QCOM chip is (potentially) the same chip in both phones. I'm sure there is a rationale explanation, but I don't know what it is.