4 ms·
I think the crux of the article is this: they used the protected monopoly on one market (e.g. CDMA modems) to gain an unfair advantage in the other markets (all
by yonran 4y ago
I think the crux of the article is this: they used the protected monopoly on one market (e.g. CDMA modems) to gain an unfair advantage in the other markets (all the other chips in a cell phone).
> Qualcomm's patent licensing fees were calculated based on the value of the entire phone, not just the value of chips that embodied Qualcomm's patented technology. This effectively meant that Qualcomm got a cut of every component of a smartphone—most of which had nothing to do with Qualcomm's cellular patents.
- radicaldreamer 4y agoDo competitors or manufacturers using other vendors (Huawei, Samsung, Mediatek, Apple) have to pay Qualcomm licensing fees?
- noselasd 4y agoAbsolutely
- tooltalk 4y agoNo, that's not how it works. The wireless patent holders collect royalties only at the top of the supply-chain (from oems, not suppliers) to maximize their profit. Mediatek and other competing modem chip makers/supply don't pay, but device-makers like Huawei, Samsung, Apple (ie, Foxconn) do.
- tooltalk 4y agoAll 5G devices makers must implement Qualcomm's standard essential patents (aka, SEP). And there are many leading 5G patent holders like Qualcomm, Nokia, Huawei, etc -- they are in turn required to license them a fair, reasonable and non-discrimintory manner (aka, FRAND) to all "willing" licensees. This lawsuit by FTC was largely concocted by Apple's multiyear efforts to pay as little as possible for Qualcomm's wireless invention (royalty) and save their bottomline -- with Apple repeatedly on the losing side not only against Qualcomm, but also every other wireless patent holders like Nokia, Ericsson, etc..
- tooltalk 4y agoThe "royalty basis" claim was not the crux of the lawsuit (or the article).