6 ms·

This story is very Apple vs. QCOM, but I don't care much about this angle really. What I care about is the underlying question: is it ok to charge IPR on value

by yaantc 9y ago

This story is very Apple vs. QCOM, but I don't care much about this angle really. What I care about is the underlying question: is it ok to charge IPR on value added way outside the scope of the given IP? I don't think so. QCOM does so. Apple is against. So I'm just sympathetic with Apple position in this strong debate and that's it (I'm not even an Apple user). And I don't feel sorry for Apple. I feel sorry for all the other small manufacturer and companies suffering from this situation, but that are too small to make things move on their own. Apple and Samsung may not have the purest of interest in this debate, but if they move things in what I believe is the right direction, I'll be happy.

somenewacc 9y ago
Why can't we let the markets regulate themselves? Or, if we're dictating what's a fair price.. can we at least force Intel, AMD and other relevant parties to license X86 patents?
- scarface74 9y ago
  The difference is that for cellular phones to be effective, they all must use the same standard. Companies agree that for their inventions to be part of the standard, they will license their patents to all comers at FRAND. The patent holders are basically granted a monopoly by the standard setters in exchange for fair licensing terms.
- CamTin 9y ago
  > Why can't we let the markets regulate themselves? Because this is a synthetic market the government explicitly created and maintained through patent legislation.
danjoc 9y ago
>Apple is against. In this case. Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas. You seem to be missing the bigger picture. The attack on Qualcomm is against the company, not the patents. Qualcomm snapdragons are the only competitive ARM chips against Apple's A series. Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market. That's not going to help the little guys you claim to care so much about.
- admiralpumpkin 9y ago
  You're not addressing the poster's point. Does makes sense for Apple to pay a % of total price of phone for one decreasingly relevant part? Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? Overall a confusing argument.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    >You're not addressing the poster's point. I already addressed it. The poster is repeating the point. That doesn't make it more valid. >Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. You might want to review world wide market share numbers before you try to defend that statement. >Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? I'm suggesting Apple is using litigation expense as an avenue to destroy the business of their competitor, again. Apple has much deeper pockets than Qualcomm. It's very simple math.
- threeseed 9y ago
  > Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas When ? I am only aware of one situation in their history i.e. Android where Apple has sought an ongoing royalty. > Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market What ? Apple is never going to sell their CPUs to their competitors. They are a product company not a components vendor so not sure what market you are referring to. Also Intel sells modem components as well.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    >> Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market >What ? Apple is never going to sell their CPUs to their competitors. Who said Apple would sell CPUs to competitors? You don't monopolize a market by having competitors. Not real ones anyway.
  - pwinnski 9y ago

by yaantc 9y ago

somenewacc 9y ago

Why can't we let the markets regulate themselves? Or, if we're dictating what's a fair price.. can we at least force Intel, AMD and other relevant parties to license X86 patents?

scarface74 9y ago
The difference is that for cellular phones to be effective, they all must use the same standard. Companies agree that for their inventions to be part of the standard, they will license their patents to all comers at FRAND. The patent holders are basically granted a monopoly by the standard setters in exchange for fair licensing terms.
CamTin 9y ago
> Why can't we let the markets regulate themselves? Because this is a synthetic market the government explicitly created and maintained through patent legislation.

danjoc 9y ago

>Apple is against. In this case. Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas. You seem to be missing the bigger picture. The attack on Qualcomm is against the company, not the patents. Qualcomm snapdragons are the only competitive ARM chips against Apple's A series. Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market. That's not going to help the little guys you claim to care so much about.

admiralpumpkin 9y ago
You're not addressing the poster's point. Does makes sense for Apple to pay a % of total price of phone for one decreasingly relevant part? Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? Overall a confusing argument.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >You're not addressing the poster's point. I already addressed it. The poster is repeating the point. That doesn't make it more valid. >Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. You might want to review world wide market share numbers before you try to defend that statement. >Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? I'm suggesting Apple is using litigation expense as an avenue to destroy the business of their competitor, again. Apple has much deeper pockets than Qualcomm. It's very simple math.
threeseed 9y ago
> Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas When ? I am only aware of one situation in their history i.e. Android where Apple has sought an ongoing royalty. > Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market What ? Apple is never going to sell their CPUs to their competitors. They are a product company not a components vendor so not sure what market you are referring to. Also Intel sells modem components as well.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >> Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market >What ? Apple is never going to sell their CPUs to their competitors. Who said Apple would sell CPUs to competitors? You don't monopolize a market by having competitors. Not real ones anyway.
- pwinnski 9y ago