4 ms·
Correct, however the argument I was presenting with the car was intended to demonstrate: 1: A product that ostensibly is not a communications device 2: The com
by mitchty 9y ago
Correct, however the argument I was presenting with the car was intended to demonstrate:
1: A product that ostensibly is not a communications device
2: The component providing LTE is but a small subset of the overall device
3: A rather high cost item where a fixed percentage ends up being rather significant
Even for the iPhone I'd argue that the overall communications ensemble is but a small part of the phone overall.
Contrast to an IOT device that might cost $50, the same should apply. I'm curious what the cutoff is for depends heavily and how EMVR is determined exactly?
- tooltalk 9y ago1. that's fine. Again, it depends on how much value LTE adds to the end product and, 2. if Qualcomm can prove that LTE adds significant value to the core functionining of the product and consumer demand driven by Qualcomm's patented features is significant, they are all entitled to it. In patent cases, the courts use similar underlying concepts (eg, Georgia Pacific analysis) to determine what's fair. In Apple's case, there is significantly cheaper alternative to the iPhone without Qualcomm's patented feature, the iPod touch. But we also know from Apple's own sales figure that much greater number of consumers are willing to pay much higher price for the iPhone precisely because of Qualcomm's wireless functionality. 3. Apple has in the past demanded as much as $8 per, or about 1.5% of, end-device price, for frivolous patents such as slide-to-unlock, rounded-corners, etc (for a total of $30, or about 5%, of end-user device for four such patents). Qualcomm's published rate is somewhere between 3%-5% based on Foxconn's manufacturing cost, or less than 2% of the retail price. In comparison to Apple's own licensing practices, IMO, that's a bargain.