3 ms·

> ... how slowly courts and regulators move on things like this. By the time they get around to telling you to stop doing something you're already claiming that

> ... how slowly courts and regulators move on things like this. By the time they get around to telling you to stop doing something you're already claiming that it's an established practice. Not really. We are talking about industry practices that have been around for two or three decades now and precede the development of various wireless standards created by the SSOs. > And there is no simplicity there because there are more end device makers than chip makers, so "maximum monetization" is precisely the issue -- they're claiming more than they brought to the table using a manifestly unreasonable That's not true. We are not talking about at the baseband level, but there are also many others who operate at different level (ie, Skyworks) which complicates the licensing. If we are to follow SSPPU, SEP holders would have to go after everyone from end device makers (Apple), to baseband chips (Qualcomm), to power management chips used in baseband chips (Qorvo), to etc... as QCOM's patent portfolio covers many different areas of wireless communication. The end-user device is one single aggregation point that embodies all patented features and where royalty collection is simpler. > Surely Qualcomm is not entitled to the same percentage of a $1M house that a wireless router is installed in as they are of the $100 wireless router to begin with, ... Sure, if QCOM can demonstrate that QCOM's patented features are a) an integral part of the $1M home, b) add significant value and c) drive market demand for that $1M house, yes. In another word, if QCOM's $100 wireless modems is an essential part of the 1M house, significantly enhances the market value (eg, $1M with $100 modem, $300K without it), and attracts home buyers, that's very legit. QC's $100 wireless router in a $1M house or a $100M jetliner however wouldn't pass this test in reality -- no sane buyers would pay such premium for features that are not essential in aviation or housing business. But can you say the same for wireless mobile devices? > If one iPhone is worth $300 more than another because it has a bigger screen and faster processor but the exact same wireless capability, why should Qualcomm receive any of the additional money? Yep, Apple's iPod Touch is almost at feature parity with the iPhone, but without QCOM's patented features. The Touch sells significantly fewer units despite its significantly lower price (even lower than that older iPhones with LCD and low capacity memory/storage). In this case, QCOM can argue that their $30 modem + wireless patents are integral part of the wireless mobile product, add significant value and drive market demand for their iPhones, that most consumers wouldn't otherwise buy at that price point.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> We are talking about industry practices that have been around for two or three decades now and precede the development of various wireless standards created by the SSOs. That's an eternity in tech years but barely overnight in court years. An individual court case can take a decade to come before the Supreme Court, and first that case needs to make it into court to begin with and then not be settled (as the vast majority are) before the court has the opportunity to set a precedent. And Congress typically doesn't get involved until after the courts have done something sufficiently problematic. > We are not talking about at the baseband level, but there are also many others who operate at different level (ie, Skyworks) which complicates the licensing. If we are to follow SSPPU, SEP holders would have to go after everyone from end device makers (Apple), to baseband chips (Qualcomm), to power management chips used in baseband chips (Qorvo), to etc... as QCOM's patent portfolio covers many different areas of wireless communication. The end-user device is one single aggregation point that embodies all patented features and where royalty collection is simpler. Isn't the baseband chip the SSPPU in all of those cases? How is that not the single aggregation point? > Sure, if QCOM can demonstrate that QCOM's patented features are... The point is that they can't. Otherwise why do two devices with the exact same wireless capability, even the exact same wireless baseband chip, have significantly different prices? > Yep, Apple's iPod Touch is almost at feature parity with the iPhone, but without QCOM's patented features. Not just without Qualcomm's patent features, without the entire wireless standard that they cover. The whole point of treating standards essential patents specially is that compatibility with the standard is worth significantly more than the contribution of any individual company's patents, because it's a holdup for the ability to implement the standard and communicate with the cellular network.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  >That's an eternity in tech years but barely overnight in court years. That sounds like a lot of nonsense. No, it isn't the lack of time or convoluted legal process hindering the industry or discovery of such licensing violation. Companies like Apple, TCL challenged the wireless industry, but lacking evidence or substance to back up their argument, Apple usually settled at the last minute (take for example, Apple's lawsuit against Nokia in 2008, 2016). When there was a realm full case (Samsung vs Apple, USITC 337-TA-794), it found Apple's abuse of FRAND obligation by reverse hold-up, and Apple subsequently lost all of its claims on Samsung's FRAND violation (even Apple's own ETSI FRAND experts came out testifying against Apple). > Isn't the baseband chip the SSPPU in all of those cases? How is that not the single aggregation point? No, there are other components, according to Qualcomm, that are not embedded in the baseband, such as security framework. > The point is that they can't. Otherwise why do two devices with the exact same wireless capability, even the exact same wireless baseband chip, have significantly different prices? If your gripe is your inability to understand what a percentage-based licensing model is (vs per unit price, vs exclusionary, vs lump-sum models), I can't help you there. I already explained to you why the wireless industry's licensing is fair and gave you various legal analysis/factors courts consider to determine fair, or at least to weed out extortionate, licensing schemes in patent cases. In your hypothetical $1M house, I clarified that the patents wireless features don't add any value or create market demand for $1M house, so that's a no-go. However, for mobile devices like Apple iPhone, the wireless SEPs are not only intrinsic part of the product, but also significantly increase the market value (by 100%-200% in comparison to the iPod Touch) and creates market demand that wouldn't otherwise exist . Some, eg, TCL vs Ericsson, like judge Selna ruled and estimates that 10% of wholesale end-user device is an appropriate aggregated FRAND rate for the whole 4G stack; while China's NDRC believes domestic Chinese companies deserve some more discount (about 50% of whatever everyone else deems fair; or 5% of end-user device). > ... The whole point of treating standards essential patents specially is that compatibility with the standard is worth significantly more than the contribution of any individual company's patents, because it's a holdup for the ability to implement the standard and communicate with the cellular network. Sure, and these goals of wireless standards don't preclude SEP holders from profiting from their invention. FRAND commitment doesn't mean charity. FRAND obligation and wireless standards don't exist solely to serve device-makers's interest and to increase their bottom-line. The industry licensing model as it currently stands enables SEP holders to partake in end-user makers sales while lowering the licensing burden by new low-cost mobile device makers. They achieve all that in addition to promoting wide industry adoption, inter-operability of their technical standards. You could theorize potential abuses of hold-up, royalty stacking, etc all you want -- I have yet to hear any actual "hold-up" by wireless SEP holders, but there is at least one known case of "reverse hold-up" by a rogue unwilling device maker, Apple.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> We are talking about industry practices that have been around for two or three decades now and precede the development of various wireless standards created by the SSOs. That's an eternity in tech years but barely overnight in court years. An individual court case can take a decade to come before the Supreme Court, and first that case needs to make it into court to begin with and then not be settled (as the vast majority are) before the court has the opportunity to set a precedent. And Congress typically doesn't get involved until after the courts have done something sufficiently problematic. > We are not talking about at the baseband level, but there are also many others who operate at different level (ie, Skyworks) which complicates the licensing. If we are to follow SSPPU, SEP holders would have to go after everyone from end device makers (Apple), to baseband chips (Qualcomm), to power management chips used in baseband chips (Qorvo), to etc... as QCOM's patent portfolio covers many different areas of wireless communication. The end-user device is one single aggregation point that embodies all patented features and where royalty collection is simpler. Isn't the baseband chip the SSPPU in all of those cases? How is that not the single aggregation point? > Sure, if QCOM can demonstrate that QCOM's patented features are... The point is that they can't. Otherwise why do two devices with the exact same wireless capability, even the exact same wireless baseband chip, have significantly different prices? > Yep, Apple's iPod Touch is almost at feature parity with the iPhone, but without QCOM's patented features. Not just without Qualcomm's patent features, without the entire wireless standard that they cover. The whole point of treating standards essential patents specially is that compatibility with the standard is worth significantly more than the contribution of any individual company's patents, because it's a holdup for the ability to implement the standard and communicate with the cellular network.

tooltalk 8y ago
>That's an eternity in tech years but barely overnight in court years. That sounds like a lot of nonsense. No, it isn't the lack of time or convoluted legal process hindering the industry or discovery of such licensing violation. Companies like Apple, TCL challenged the wireless industry, but lacking evidence or substance to back up their argument, Apple usually settled at the last minute (take for example, Apple's lawsuit against Nokia in 2008, 2016). When there was a realm full case (Samsung vs Apple, USITC 337-TA-794), it found Apple's abuse of FRAND obligation by reverse hold-up, and Apple subsequently lost all of its claims on Samsung's FRAND violation (even Apple's own ETSI FRAND experts came out testifying against Apple). > Isn't the baseband chip the SSPPU in all of those cases? How is that not the single aggregation point? No, there are other components, according to Qualcomm, that are not embedded in the baseband, such as security framework. > The point is that they can't. Otherwise why do two devices with the exact same wireless capability, even the exact same wireless baseband chip, have significantly different prices? If your gripe is your inability to understand what a percentage-based licensing model is (vs per unit price, vs exclusionary, vs lump-sum models), I can't help you there. I already explained to you why the wireless industry's licensing is fair and gave you various legal analysis/factors courts consider to determine fair, or at least to weed out extortionate, licensing schemes in patent cases. In your hypothetical $1M house, I clarified that the patents wireless features don't add any value or create market demand for $1M house, so that's a no-go. However, for mobile devices like Apple iPhone, the wireless SEPs are not only intrinsic part of the product, but also significantly increase the market value (by 100%-200% in comparison to the iPod Touch) and creates market demand that wouldn't otherwise exist . Some, eg, TCL vs Ericsson, like judge Selna ruled and estimates that 10% of wholesale end-user device is an appropriate aggregated FRAND rate for the whole 4G stack; while China's NDRC believes domestic Chinese companies deserve some more discount (about 50% of whatever everyone else deems fair; or 5% of end-user device). > ... The whole point of treating standards essential patents specially is that compatibility with the standard is worth significantly more than the contribution of any individual company's patents, because it's a holdup for the ability to implement the standard and communicate with the cellular network. Sure, and these goals of wireless standards don't preclude SEP holders from profiting from their invention. FRAND commitment doesn't mean charity. FRAND obligation and wireless standards don't exist solely to serve device-makers's interest and to increase their bottom-line. The industry licensing model as it currently stands enables SEP holders to partake in end-user makers sales while lowering the licensing burden by new low-cost mobile device makers. They achieve all that in addition to promoting wide industry adoption, inter-operability of their technical standards. You could theorize potential abuses of hold-up, royalty stacking, etc all you want -- I have yet to hear any actual "hold-up" by wireless SEP holders, but there is at least one known case of "reverse hold-up" by a rogue unwilling device maker, Apple.