4 ms·

> The company that developed or acquired all of modern wireless comms tech, and thus gets paid very high license fees for everything that includes anything that

> The company that developed or acquired all of modern wireless comms tech, and thus gets paid very high license fees for everything that includes anything that talks to anything else over the air. How come they aren't regulated by antitrust laws?

SSLy 3y ago
antitrust enforcement is non-existent for B2B markets
rmilk 3y ago
Apple tried. Recall the huge IP licensing battle from a year or two ago where Apple challenged Qualcomm on base price for royalties and what was considered FRAND given some of the patents were incorporated into the communication protocol standards. Here is one of the HN articles, there are plenty more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15399689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15399689
ksec 3y ago
Regulated for what? For spending the highest amount of R&D per Revenue to further improve an insanely complicated field of technology, much more so than CPU or GPU but no one understand, not being talked about, not hyped up, and no media knows anything about? It is worth pointing out Qualcomm isn't just sitting here doing nothing and collecting money. That is the narrative Apple's PR spend years trying to put a spin on. When it was Steve Jobs himself who first put a high value on Qualcomm's patent. May be preciously because he understand the value Qualcomm has to offer. And even at the time Tim Cook was unhappy about putting another $7 on COGS.
- danaris 3y ago
  > Regulated for what? For monopolizing the technology that became standardized, and thus required, for all of modern communications. "Boo hoo, they spent good money for all those patents to make sure they were the only ones you could turn to to make these things!" They've been wiping their tears away with the stacks of money they charge every single hardware manufacturer for access to that technology for far too long now, including very clearly breaching the spirit of FRAND at least in their dealings with Apple, based on the hard facts that came out with that case.
  - ksec 3y ago
    >For monopolizing the technology that became standardized, and thus required, for all of modern communications. In that case every single one of the patents holding are "monopolizing" the technology. ( No that is not monopolizing means ). That is including Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung and LG. I am not even counting ZTE and Huawei here. > based on the hard facts that came out with that case. Hard facts? You mean charging Apple double the amount of the next total six patent holder?

SSLy 3y ago

antitrust enforcement is non-existent for B2B markets

rmilk 3y ago

Apple tried. Recall the huge IP licensing battle from a year or two ago where Apple challenged Qualcomm on base price for royalties and what was considered FRAND given some of the patents were incorporated into the communication protocol standards. Here is one of the HN articles, there are plenty more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15399689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15399689

ksec 3y ago

Regulated for what? For spending the highest amount of R&D per Revenue to further improve an insanely complicated field of technology, much more so than CPU or GPU but no one understand, not being talked about, not hyped up, and no media knows anything about? It is worth pointing out Qualcomm isn't just sitting here doing nothing and collecting money. That is the narrative Apple's PR spend years trying to put a spin on. When it was Steve Jobs himself who first put a high value on Qualcomm's patent. May be preciously because he understand the value Qualcomm has to offer. And even at the time Tim Cook was unhappy about putting another $7 on COGS.

danaris 3y ago
> Regulated for what? For monopolizing the technology that became standardized, and thus required, for all of modern communications. "Boo hoo, they spent good money for all those patents to make sure they were the only ones you could turn to to make these things!" They've been wiping their tears away with the stacks of money they charge every single hardware manufacturer for access to that technology for far too long now, including very clearly breaching the spirit of FRAND at least in their dealings with Apple, based on the hard facts that came out with that case.
- ksec 3y ago
  >For monopolizing the technology that became standardized, and thus required, for all of modern communications. In that case every single one of the patents holding are "monopolizing" the technology. ( No that is not monopolizing means ). That is including Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung and LG. I am not even counting ZTE and Huawei here. > based on the hard facts that came out with that case. Hard facts? You mean charging Apple double the amount of the next total six patent holder?