4 ms·

First, wasn't Infineon always on the 3G/4G scene? > It is only because Qualcomm can't go against Mediatek on its home soil, they went after their channel, and

First, wasn't Infineon always on the 3G/4G scene? > It is only because Qualcomm can't go against Mediatek on its home soil, they went after their channel, and clients in courts. Qualcomm, or wireless patent holders in general, never go after component makers; as a long-held industry practice, they always go after the handset makers for maximum royalty. That practice has been upheld by regulators around the world -- though there is a lawsuit by the FTC to change that at Apple's behest now. This also presumably allows new entrants to enter the wireless chip business and, therefore, increase competition. Qualcomm further is not exactly known for lawsuits, though it always seems to be fighting regulators around the world. It reportedly initiated fewer than 3 lawsuits in the past two years -- now compared to Apple's 90+ pending lawsuits.

baybal2 8y ago
> First, wasn't Infineon always on the 3G/4G scene? No, plainly speaking. There was never was a real SoC from them. Intel bought an already dead business from Infineon. > Qualcomm, or wireless patent holders in general, never go after component makers; as a long-held industry practice, they always go after the handset makers for maximum royalty. No, anybody with a real business, and not living off patent trolling will not do that, and did not do that. Only QCM really have no head on their shoulders there to risk everything in a retaliatory lawsuit every time. > That practice has been upheld by regulators around the world No, completely not the case. I worked in electronics business for close to 12 years now, and I know few things about how patent law actually works in real world. Qualcomm was show to the door great many times by courts during their peak patent trolling a decade ago, in I think more than 10 countries.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  Yes, I'm talking about wireless modems, not SOCs. I wasn't asking your opinion on what wireless licensing ought to be; this licensing model has long been upheld by regulators and accepted by companies around the world for decades. Even China's antitrust regulator NDRC who fined Qualcomm to the tune of $975M last year supports their royalty model (https://www.winston.com/images/content/1/0/v2/100610/HarrisJul-15-2.pdf https://www.winston.com/images/content/1/0/v2/100610/HarrisJ...): "... Qualcomm will charge royalties for 3G and 4G Chinese SEPs for branded smartphones sold for use in China based on a royalty base of 65 percent of the net selling price of the smartphone and royalty rates of 5 percent for 3G devices and 3.5 percent for 4G phones; ..." And all wireless patents holders like Ericsson, Nokia, etc use the same royalty basis (ie, system level licensing) and similar royalty rates a bit lower. If you weren't unaware of it, now you know it. I've been around the software business for 20 years now though it doesn't make me an legal expert on anything, much less transnational IP laws. I just try not to make any empty position without evidence.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    > I wasn't asking your opinion on what wireless licensing ought to be; this licensing model has long been upheld by regulators and accepted by companies around the world for decades. Even China's antitrust regulator NDRC who fined Qualcomm to the tune of $975M last year supports their royalty model (https://www.winston.com/images/content/1/0/v2/100610/HarrisJ... https://www.winston.com/images/content/1/0/v2/100610/HarrisJ...): That's nothing much than a political move to appease USA. There is really no law in China that ever says any of terms named, they (NRDC) made it up on the go. From standpoint of Chinese legal system, there are simply no legal reasoning for that. Because to them it sounds like: "if you don't buy our chips, we will sue you," and that doesn't make any sense to the judges. In Chinese, the judgement effectively read like "we make a concession for you because big papa is behind you." When Qualcomm was suing Nokia and Siemens a decade ago, German courts, I think, threw out more 10 of their lawsuits out of the court.
    - tooltalk 8y ago
      China's NDRC's antitrust findings were later affirmed by counterparts in South Korea, Taiwan, and the EU who found the same violations in their investigation in 2016 and 2017. Now, are you also arguing that there is no law in those countries/union and they just made it up on the go like China? And appease USA? As I noted earlier, Obama's USFTC filed a lawsuit challenging Qualcomm's licensing practices. Who exactly was the NDRC appeasing? Qualcomm or USA? The NDRC's action is contrary to the USA's policy and China isn't going to win new friend by contradicting US's policy goals. Again, the system level licensing is not only widely accepted and upheld industry practice. Take another instance of the UMTS IPR Association's statement on system level licensing in wireless industry: " ... The royalty “collection point” shall be the last manufacturer in the manufacturing “chain.”This means that chip and subsystem manufacturers shall be indemnified for sales made toLicensees of certified Essential Patents who are the last manufacturers in the “chain.”Licensees shall not include those manufacturers of component products which are incorporated into final assembled products for which royalties are paid to their respective Licensor(s) ..." * 3G Patent Platform for 3G Mobile Communication Systems – Definition, Function,Structure, Operation, Governance, UMTS IPR ASSOCIATION, Section 8.2.6 (June 15, 2000)

baybal2 8y ago

> First, wasn't Infineon always on the 3G/4G scene? No, plainly speaking. There was never was a real SoC from them. Intel bought an already dead business from Infineon. > Qualcomm, or wireless patent holders in general, never go after component makers; as a long-held industry practice, they always go after the handset makers for maximum royalty. No, anybody with a real business, and not living off patent trolling will not do that, and did not do that. Only QCM really have no head on their shoulders there to risk everything in a retaliatory lawsuit every time. > That practice has been upheld by regulators around the world No, completely not the case. I worked in electronics business for close to 12 years now, and I know few things about how patent law actually works in real world. Qualcomm was show to the door great many times by courts during their peak patent trolling a decade ago, in I think more than 10 countries.

tooltalk 8y ago
Yes, I'm talking about wireless modems, not SOCs. I wasn't asking your opinion on what wireless licensing ought to be; this licensing model has long been upheld by regulators and accepted by companies around the world for decades. Even China's antitrust regulator NDRC who fined Qualcomm to the tune of $975M last year supports their royalty model (https://www.winston.com/images/content/1/0/v2/100610/HarrisJul-15-2.pdf https://www.winston.com/images/content/1/0/v2/100610/HarrisJ...): "... Qualcomm will charge royalties for 3G and 4G Chinese SEPs for branded smartphones sold for use in China based on a royalty base of 65 percent of the net selling price of the smartphone and royalty rates of 5 percent for 3G devices and 3.5 percent for 4G phones; ..." And all wireless patents holders like Ericsson, Nokia, etc use the same royalty basis (ie, system level licensing) and similar royalty rates a bit lower. If you weren't unaware of it, now you know it. I've been around the software business for 20 years now though it doesn't make me an legal expert on anything, much less transnational IP laws. I just try not to make any empty position without evidence.
- baybal2 8y ago
  > I wasn't asking your opinion on what wireless licensing ought to be; this licensing model has long been upheld by regulators and accepted by companies around the world for decades. Even China's antitrust regulator NDRC who fined Qualcomm to the tune of $975M last year supports their royalty model (https://www.winston.com/images/content/1/0/v2/100610/HarrisJ... https://www.winston.com/images/content/1/0/v2/100610/HarrisJ...): That's nothing much than a political move to appease USA. There is really no law in China that ever says any of terms named, they (NRDC) made it up on the go. From standpoint of Chinese legal system, there are simply no legal reasoning for that. Because to them it sounds like: "if you don't buy our chips, we will sue you," and that doesn't make any sense to the judges. In Chinese, the judgement effectively read like "we make a concession for you because big papa is behind you." When Qualcomm was suing Nokia and Siemens a decade ago, German courts, I think, threw out more 10 of their lawsuits out of the court.
  - tooltalk 8y ago
    China's NDRC's antitrust findings were later affirmed by counterparts in South Korea, Taiwan, and the EU who found the same violations in their investigation in 2016 and 2017. Now, are you also arguing that there is no law in those countries/union and they just made it up on the go like China? And appease USA? As I noted earlier, Obama's USFTC filed a lawsuit challenging Qualcomm's licensing practices. Who exactly was the NDRC appeasing? Qualcomm or USA? The NDRC's action is contrary to the USA's policy and China isn't going to win new friend by contradicting US's policy goals. Again, the system level licensing is not only widely accepted and upheld industry practice. Take another instance of the UMTS IPR Association's statement on system level licensing in wireless industry: " ... The royalty “collection point” shall be the last manufacturer in the manufacturing “chain.”This means that chip and subsystem manufacturers shall be indemnified for sales made toLicensees of certified Essential Patents who are the last manufacturers in the “chain.”Licensees shall not include those manufacturers of component products which are incorporated into final assembled products for which royalties are paid to their respective Licensor(s) ..." * 3G Patent Platform for 3G Mobile Communication Systems – Definition, Function,Structure, Operation, Governance, UMTS IPR ASSOCIATION, Section 8.2.6 (June 15, 2000)