3 ms·

All the most crucial wireless patents have already expired The 2G patents (that Qualcomm owned 90% of) have expired.. but who uses that anymore? Qualcomm also

All the most crucial wireless patents have already expired The 2G patents (that Qualcomm owned 90% of) have expired.. but who uses that anymore? Qualcomm also owns 13% of the patents used for LTE (which they agreed to license under FRAND terms).. it's those patents they are using to create a monopoly on LTE chips. First they refuse to license their patents to other manufacturers who want to produce chips.. then they say to handset manufacturers, they won't sell you chips unless you agree to pay a royalty on every handset (even if it does not contain Qualcomm chips). They own the same percentage of patents as Erickson, but they produce 4x the revenue from IP licensing (+ the revenue from chipset sales). Edit: if you believe the 13% of LTE patents Qualcomm owns are worth $10... that would be $77 for all of the LTE standard essential patents at the same rate. So we are not far off from your $100 Apple-like price in your post.

abritinthebay 9y ago
> First they refuse to license their patents to other manufacturers who want to produce chips Isn't that a FRAND violation?
- mercutio2 9y ago
  IANAL, but yes, sure looks like a FRAND violation. And that is the lawsuit in a nutshell!
ksec 9y ago
Yes one has to wonder why Ericsson and Nokia dont charges more. But Ericsson and Nokia do charges a lot for their Mobile Carrier Infrastructure and Equipment, where as Qualcomm dont have part in that industry. And one reason why Huawei is winning because Huawei has been offering similar equipment for much cheaper price.
tooltalk 9y ago
@rgbrenner: First, Qualcomm chipset also comes with IPs owned by Samsung and a slew of other wireless patent holders who crossed-licensed theirs with Qualcomm. Samsung and LG, along with Qualcomm, are the largest contributors of LTE SEP's and make up the bulk of LTE patents (KFTC likewise found that Qualcomm used its monopolistic position to force them to cross-license their patents for almost nothing in return). So no. Even if you stack everything, it won't be anywhere close to your nonsensical $77. Second, under ETSI (see section 1.11), Qualcomm has the right to refuse the granting of licenses.
- dpark 9y ago
  Do you think that just maybe you should stop quoting the ETSI IPR policy as if it defines the legal obligations of patent holders? It doesn’t, and I already pointed out that it doesn’t, and your own references elsewhere point out that it doesn’t.

abritinthebay 9y ago

> First they refuse to license their patents to other manufacturers who want to produce chips Isn't that a FRAND violation?

mercutio2 9y ago
IANAL, but yes, sure looks like a FRAND violation. And that is the lawsuit in a nutshell!

ksec 9y ago

Yes one has to wonder why Ericsson and Nokia dont charges more. But Ericsson and Nokia do charges a lot for their Mobile Carrier Infrastructure and Equipment, where as Qualcomm dont have part in that industry. And one reason why Huawei is winning because Huawei has been offering similar equipment for much cheaper price.

tooltalk 9y ago

@rgbrenner: First, Qualcomm chipset also comes with IPs owned by Samsung and a slew of other wireless patent holders who crossed-licensed theirs with Qualcomm. Samsung and LG, along with Qualcomm, are the largest contributors of LTE SEP's and make up the bulk of LTE patents (KFTC likewise found that Qualcomm used its monopolistic position to force them to cross-license their patents for almost nothing in return). So no. Even if you stack everything, it won't be anywhere close to your nonsensical $77. Second, under ETSI (see section 1.11), Qualcomm has the right to refuse the granting of licenses.

dpark 9y ago
Do you think that just maybe you should stop quoting the ETSI IPR policy as if it defines the legal obligations of patent holders? It doesn’t, and I already pointed out that it doesn’t, and your own references elsewhere point out that it doesn’t.