REGISTER | LOGIN
Breaking News
News & Analysis

Patent Suits Hit Qícomm Profits

Foxconn in the middle of Apple suit
1/25/2017 08:00 PM EST
8 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 3 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
realjjj
User Rank
CEO
Re: Component licensing?
realjjj   1/26/2017 10:33:08 PM
NO RATINGS
As far as we know, they don't want such agreements, at all. The Korean regulator mentions that Qualcomm simply refuses to license SEP and not that it asks for too much.

I've linked to the translation of the Korea document a couple of times, it really is worth reading. PDF goo.gl/1vWq3Z Here's a quote:

"However, in violation of the FRAND commitment, Qualcomm refused or restricted the provision of cellular SEP licenses that are essential for the chipset manufacture and sales, despite requests from chipset makers.
Samsung, Intel, and VIA, among others, requested license agreements for cellular SEPs, but Qualcomm refused.*
*Determined that if Qualcomm provides licenses to competing chipset companies, it would be difficult to maintain model where Qualcomm receives royalties from handset companies
Although competing chipset companies such as MediaTek requested complete patent license agreements, the agreement entered into was an incomplete agreement* that restricts the rights subject to the license.
* Representative examples are restrictions on to whom competing chipset companies can sell or the right to use the modem chipset. Also, Qualcomm requested reports about sensitive business information such as competing chipset companies' sales amount by product model, product model, name of customers, etc."




And a quote from a joint statement by Qualcomm and Mediatek: https://www.qualcomm.com/joint-public-statement-mediatek-and-qualcomm

"The original agreements between MediaTek and Qualcomm were not, and the amended agreements are not, "license" (or "licensing") agreements. MediaTek does not have a license to any of Qualcomm's patents, and Qualcomm does not have a license to any of MediaTek's patents.The amended agreements do not prohibit either Qualcomm or MediaTek from selling chipsets to any customer. Under the amended agreements, neither Qualcomm nor MediaTek receives any patent rights of each other that can be conveyed to another party."

Note the last bit LOL. It goes on to be more specific.

"Finally, the patent agreements between MediaTek and Qualcomm (including the recent amendments) are not intended to change any obligation (including any reporting or royalty obligations) any customer may have under any agreement with Qualcomm or MediaTek. Compared to customers of other chipset suppliers, MediaTek customers are under no different obligations with respect to any license agreements they may have with Qualcomm or with respect to the need to license any Qualcomm patents that they may use in their products. Likewise, compared to customers of other chipset suppliers, Qualcomm customers are under no different obligations with respect to any license agreements they may have with MediaTek or with respect to the need to license any MediaTek patents that they may use in their products. By this statement, neither MediaTek nor Qualcomm advises any other party as to its own legal rights or obligations, as to which such party should obtain its own legal counsel."


It's all about not licensing SEP to competitors, eveything is built on that.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Component licensing?
rick merritt   1/26/2017 8:41:12 PM
NO RATINGS
I'd love to see the actual numbers in terms of license fees they have proposed to any chip makers...or are you suggesting they just don't return calls?

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Component licensing?
rick merritt   1/26/2017 8:40:20 PM
NO RATINGS
I'd love to see the actual numbers in terms of license fees they have proposed to any chip makers...or are you suggesting they just don't return calls?

realjjj
User Rank
CEO
Re: Component licensing?
realjjj   1/26/2017 3:51:59 PM
NO RATINGS
The question to ask is: If Qualcomm complies with the law and licenses SEP to other chipmakers, do device makers still need to pay for SEP?

Refusing to license SEP to competitors is the foundation of the scheme.

Lets say you are Spreadtrum and you sell an entire low end SoC, with lots of other IP, at 5$. Can Qualcomm, owning just 16% of the LTE SEP, come and ask for 5$ for their IP? What kind of mediator or judge would agree that such a fee is fair and reasonable?

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Component licensing?
rick merritt   1/26/2017 11:32:55 AM
NO RATINGS
Is there much push outside Apple for component-level (as opposed to system/device-level) licenseing of SEPs?

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Qualcomm v Apple
rick merritt   1/26/2017 11:24:07 AM
NO RATINGS
There was no talk or questions about rebates to Apple on the earnings call.

Qcomm repeated several times it has no patent licenses with Apple, they are all with ODMs such as Foxconn.

Scudrunner
User Rank
Author
Qualcomm v Apple
Scudrunner   1/26/2017 11:14:38 AM
NO RATINGS
The way I read it is that Qualcomm is currently withholding chip rebate payments to Apple, not the other way around. Some say these were "exclusivity" payments and Apple is no longer exclusive with Qualcomm (using Intel baseband also). Qualcomm don't see it that way though it seems. Given plenty of history, this (lawsuit) seems like a standard opening negotiating tactic in the smartphone IP industry? Apple's royalty agreement ran out at the end of 2016 i think!

realjjj
User Rank
CEO
...
realjjj   1/25/2017 9:39:48 PM
NO RATINGS
""Even if [competing cellular baseband vendors] license that subset they would still have to license other" patents, and such a multi-tiered scheme would be less efficient, Aberle said."

 

And much much cheaper lol.

They couldn't tax the entire device, they couldn't bundle all the patents, like it or not. Plus they couldn't charge for SEP when they sell a Qualcomm modem.

Their leverage comes from SEP as well as a de facto monopoly in some market segments and/or with some carriers. Just the fact that they are able to sue their customers and still retain them as customers, shows that there is a lack of competition, in key areas. If they would license SEP to competitors, the entire scheme falls apart.

Anyway, interesting how much share they lost in 2016 with MSM down 85 million units. Maybe they can blame most of it on Apple - weak year plus the share loss to Intel.

Wonder if Apple is pushing now because they have their own modem about ready?

Most Recent Comments
VicVat
 
BrainiacV
 
R_Colin_Johnson
 
Jayna Sheats
 
ganderson98001
 
Jayna Sheats
 
R_Colin_Johnson
 
EELoser
 
betajet
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed