5 ms·
OLED and x86 aren't covered by FRAND, LTE is. When you push to make your patented tech part of a standard, you also agree to license it reasonably.
by ecopoesis 9y ago
OLED and x86 aren't covered by FRAND, LTE is. When you push to make your patented tech part of a standard, you also agree to license it reasonably.
- faragon 9y agoThen, could you explain me why Mediatek can not sell x86-compatible SoCs for 5 USD?
- robert_foss 9y agoX86 is not covered by FRAND either?
- AlphaSite 9y agoBecause it's not a standard?
- faragon 9y agox86 is a de facto standard.
- wyldfire 9y agoThe term "standard" in this context means "governed by a standardization body like 3GPP, etc." This is significant because the FRAND limitation comes not from legal restrictions on patents but from these standardization bodies themselves. "Yes, QCOM, you made a far superior air interface for radios. In recognition of your superior design, we will use your patents as our standard but only if you agree to license it to anyone on 'fair' terms."
- faragon 9y agoAs "fair" != free/gratis, I assume this is just a price discussion between Intel/Samsung and Qualcomm. So what is interpreted as "fair" for Qualcomm, it is not for Intel/Samsung. Result: if the FRAND limitation doesn't set explicit margins, this is going to get ugly for Samsung and Intel.
- dogma1138 9y agoNo, FRAND means that the licensing terms are fixed, equal and open to all and cannot be used to gain a competitive advantage.
- faragon 9y agoThen, who is right, Qualcomm saying they're honoring the agreements, or Intel/Samsung? Both can not be right.
- tooltalk 9y agoQualcomm is most likely wrong and has been found guilty in at least three different courts. The FTC has been a bit slow in keeping up with other regulators. Qualcomm does have quite a bit of political and lobbying clout in the US -- ie, Qualcomm is a domestic company whereas most device makers are foreign.
- cryptarch 9y agoThat's what the lawsuit is to determine. I'm guessing Qualcomm will lose.
- wav-part 9y agoShouldnt then 3GPP do the FRAND enforcement ? After all it is 3GPP who made QCOM techs popular in the market.
- stephenr 9y ago!define de facto: > Existing in actuality, especially when contrary to or not established by law There is no standards committee approving X86 processor designs/features/functionality, with a goal of vendor interoperability, thus, there is no 'standard' for X86.
- Nullabillity 9y agoYup, that means it's not a real standard. That's why it's "just" a de facto standard, since it's still pretty much the only thing used in its product category.
- aey 9y agoThere is nothing in the market to signal that Qualcomm is not licensing under FRAND. It's not like they have 80% market share. Apple intel and Samsung have a combined market cap of 1.3 trillion. Qualcomm is 80 billion.