I think his argument is competely backwards here. The R&D vs dividend decision is largely independent[1] from the decision about what to do with their patent po

I think his argument is competely backwards here. The R&D vs dividend decision is largely independent[1] from the decision about what to do with their patent portfolio. The R&D vs dividend decision is just about the expected ROI and risk of R&D vs Qualcomm's cost of capital. (Like any other investment decision). Note that the decision is a spectrum from "raise money and do R&D" to "pay a huge dividend and do no R&D". The disagreement between Qualcomm execs and Jana (or Broadcom) is that the former say they can deliver returns over their cost of capital by investing in R&D, while the latter don't think so. Patent reform (assuming it makes patents less attractive), would only bolster the investor case, as it would make new investment in R&D less attractive. (Ignoring 2nd and 3rd order effects) [1]: Once you figure out how much R&D to do, the licensing vs selling vs spinning off is largely a financing question. If you need more cash to invest today, selling some patents replaces issuing stock. If you need cash to pay a dividend, you can give shareholders your patents directly (i.e., do a spin off) or sell the patents and give them cash.