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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (195086)	8/4/2025 3:38:49 PM
From: sbfm	8 Recommendations Recommended By GR8FORM JeffreyHF Jim Mullens manning18 pheilman_ and 3 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197029

Art, Q (or any SEP holder) has an obligation to FRAND its "product" only if you define "product" as a Standard Essential Patent. I dont think owning a SEP has a requirement to also design, produce, and sell a widget incorporating that SEP. (If your view is correct, it would mean EVERY SEP holder also is required to license every other SEP holders IP AND produce widgets. I'm open to be proven wrong on this, however.) Whether to produce or design a widget is a market/business decision and subject to whatever negotiations and leverage one party want to assert. Also, if memory serves, Q was forced by China to unbundle the SEP and non-SEP portfolio. (Now, realistically, it's still a one-stop, one-rate world.)