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: Silcon Observer who wrote (196057)	10/17/2025 2:41:52 PM
From: Srat Man	2 Recommendations Recommended By Dr. John Ruffian Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196519

I'm late responding to your post about fear of licensing renewals. Friday is bingo morning followed by back to back Matlock reruns. Sports comparison. Qualcomm has a decent defense but poor offense. Our best player(asset) would be our patents. However, when we get to the line of scrimmage we find our best player is also playing for the other team! WTH is that? License renewal could be the strongest hand we've been dealt. But it will take hard-nosed forward thinkers that aren't hiding under their desk Or, we could continue to be the Washington Generals.

To: Silcon Observer who wrote (196057)	10/18/2025 2:40:27 AM
From: Qurious	1 Recommendation Recommended By Dr. John Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196519

Otoh, one could invert your argument. Q might have been incentivized to cut Cook a good deal on the royalty rate back in 2019 to (a) settle the lawsuit (then pending uncertain outcome on appeal after Lucy Koh's adverse rulings); and (b) gain the iPhone socket (assuming MDTK had a slim but nonzero chance competing for it). By 2027, assuming Q lost 100% of the iPhone socket, one could argue Cook will have lost any and all leverage. If I were Q, why would I not play hard ball? What have I got to lose? Sure, Cook could cry a river again over Q's "unfair" royalties. But wouldn't he have mostly self-sabotaged that argument by agreeing to pay Q royalties over the intervening 8 years?