post #41 of 41
BTW as far as a reason that Motorola pulled licensing away from Qualcomm? Perhaps it' could be that they stopped collecting royalties on behalf of Broadcomm, Motorola. Kyocera, Samsung, etc if the sale delivery was to an overseas client, perhaps someone like FOXCONN, even tho the sale may have been to a US customer, perhaps someone like Apple. Qualcomm wasn't paying any agreed upon royalties on those sales, in violation of their contract with the IP holder.
 

So Motorola's action to pull the agreement with Qualcomm may not have been aimed at Apple alone. Qualcomm was trying to sneak a little extra profit in for themselves by claiming overseas sales didn't apply to their 3rd party royalty agreements, and besides it was only for things like wireless radios anyway. The court didn't agree, slapping Qualcomm with a contempt charge. 

 

"It defended its actions by saying that although orders from AnyData, Kyocera, LG, Motorola, and Samsung were indeed placed in the United States, shipments of parts were not to the United States; and exactly what these customers do with those parts after they put them in cell phones and handsets, is something Qualcomm can't exactly track."

"Furthermore, Qualcomm said it thought the injunction only applied to CDMA2000- and EV-DO-related chipsets that would be used in devices with wireless radios, not any other class of device (ie smartphone) that customers might have in mind.

Yesterday, Judge Selna didn't buy those arguments, deciding to hold Qualcomm in contempt of the injunction order. As a result, he penalized Qualcomm as much as $1.86 million in back royalties, payable within 60 days. Qualcomm was also ordered to retrieve any chips currently in transit sold to unallowed, ornon-sunset, customers within 45 days."

http://betanews.com/2008/11/18/qualcomm-hit-with-contempt-of-injunction-in-broadcom-case/


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/16/12 at 9:31am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply