Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.
I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.
The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".
I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.
Looks like anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....
No, I don't call it fair. It's also not atypical for royalties to be based on the product sales price.
You might read the PDF I linked above for a better understanding of formulas for determining a fair recompense for FRAND-pledged IP.
The product is the Quaalcom chip. Not the iPhone. That is the point. The Point is not how the royalty is priced.
But, let's accept your argument. And, in the process, also admit Samsung is charging Apple (only) an additional royalty on top of that paid thru Quaalcom and that it is based on retail and not wholesale price of the end product. That is, by definition, discriminatory and, in most countries, illegal. But, if you think that is right and appropriate, I would recommend that every patent holder for patents of products you purchase charge you and only you an additional royalty, based on suggested retail price for each and every product you buy. it's only fair, after all.
Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".
I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.
Looks like anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....
Finally, even if it were true that the percentage is based on the wholesale price, my read is that that's the price for the whole chip, hardware, cumulative rights, and all. That's hugely different from charging that amount for a single FRAND-encumbered patent.
Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".
I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.
Looks like Anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....
You didn't actually read Qualcomm's document on what their royalty rate is based on did you? The silly name-calling becomes even more comical when you you don't bother to read fully. Take a look at the document linked in post 22, page 2 specifically, and then comment again if you'd like to.
The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
The product is the Quaalcom chip. Not the iPhone. That is the point. The Point is not how the royalty is priced.
It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.
Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.
I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.
The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
Aside from the fact that you're making things up.....
1. Motorola and Google have made it clear that 2.25% was the price PER patent.
2. Motorola and Google are the only ones charging that amount on the final product price.
3. If we accept your figures, then Apple would be paying $100 per iPhone in license fees or many of billions of dollars last year. Why is it that these massive fees never show up on Apple's financials or the financials of the licensors?
Aside from the fact that you're making things up.....
1. Motorola and Google have made it clear that 2.25% was the price PER patent.
2. Motorola and Google are the only ones charging that amount on the final product price.
3. If we accept your figures, then Apple would be paying $100 per iPhone in license fees or many of billions of dollars last year. Why is it that these massive fees never show up on Apple's financials or the financials of the licensors?
Clearly, your wild assertion is wrong.
What did I make up? Any specifics? When did Google or Motorola contend the 2.25% royalties applied to each individual patent they contribute to a standard? How much is Apple paying in licensing fees? Just who is making stuff up? Surely you have links to show it isn't you.
You didn't actually read Qualcomm's document on what their royalty rate is based on did you? The silly name-calling becomes even more comical when you you don't bother to read fully. Take a look at the document linked in post 22, page 2 specifically, and then comment again if you'd like to.
That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.
"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomm’s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm’s existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomm’s expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomm’s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm’s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."
Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.
It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.
Yes. Your link supports your point. I wonder what royalty amount they collect on cars with built in telephony? Must be a sweet number, don't you think?
And, unlike Samsung, that is as you note the wholesale and not the retail price. Big difference.
In the end, it does not matter how the amount is calculated. What does matter is that Apple (or any company really) is treated fairly with respect to pricing applied to other manufacturers using chips with that same patent set. Obviously, in this case, it has not been. All other arguments, including how royalties are priced are immaterial to that central question.
Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.
The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.
the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.
Oh give me a break.
But it does seem to me that this court is trying to get a truce on all sides.
That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.
"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomm’s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm’s existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomm’s expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomm’s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm’s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."
Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.
I might also add that charging a percentage on a smartphone and a dumbphone, if it's by overall price, is hugely punitive for the smartphone. In effect, Qualcomm would be getting paid for the inclusion of a camera, memory, etcetera. I'd challenge that in court in a heartbeat!
That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.
"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomm?s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm?s existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomm?s expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomm?s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm?s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."
Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.
So you really believe that when Qualcomm says the royalty applies to a "complete, end user subscriber device" they mean a chipset? Plainly not as a chipset would not be a subscriber device.
So you really believe that when Qualcomm says the royalty applies to a "complete, end user subscriber device" they mean a chipset? Plainly not as a chipset would not be a subscriber device.
I think that's going to be hotly contested (they get 3.25% of the profit on the camera, the memory, etcetera?), but I concede your point. You are apparantly not a Big S.H.I.T. after all (although quoting from Scott Moritz doesn't add points in your favor...).
However, the fact that Qualcomm has a lock on 3G tech and to a lesser degree on 4G tech does not mean that they're not including FRAND payments to many, many others out of that 3.25%.
please define troll. Anybody that disagrees with you? Anybody that isn't salivating pavlov-style over everything apple? If they say anything critical at all, then they should be ignored or criticized?
Please don't feed the troll haters. Oh, dang. That's me.
Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.
I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.
The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
I think that's going to be hotly contested (they get 3.25% of the profit on the camera, the memory, etcetera?), but I concede your point. You are apparantly not a Big S.H.I.T. after all (although quoting from Scott Moritz doesn't add points in your favor...).
However, the fact that Qualcomm has a lock on 3G tech and to a lesser degree on 4G tech does not mean that they're not including FRAND payments to many, many others out of that 3.25%.
I'm sure there are and Qualcomm themselves tell you how to do it: If you've got some patents of your own you'd like to share, we'll take that into consideration and adjust the rate accordingly.
Not well said. Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent that's FRAND-encumbered. Qualcomm gets 3.25% for a collection of FRAND patents. Big difference.
It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.
Your link doesn't prove anything of the sort. It simply says 3.25% of the device. From Qualcomm's perspective, the device is the chip.
Comments
Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html
Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.
I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.
The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".
I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.
Looks like anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....
No, I don't call it fair. It's also not atypical for royalties to be based on the product sales price.
You might read the PDF I linked above for a better understanding of formulas for determining a fair recompense for FRAND-pledged IP.
The product is the Quaalcom chip. Not the iPhone. That is the point. The Point is not how the royalty is priced.
But, let's accept your argument. And, in the process, also admit Samsung is charging Apple (only) an additional royalty on top of that paid thru Quaalcom and that it is based on retail and not wholesale price of the end product. That is, by definition, discriminatory and, in most countries, illegal. But, if you think that is right and appropriate, I would recommend that every patent holder for patents of products you purchase charge you and only you an additional royalty, based on suggested retail price for each and every product you buy. it's only fair, after all.
Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".
I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.
Looks like anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....
Finally, even if it were true that the percentage is based on the wholesale price, my read is that that's the price for the whole chip, hardware, cumulative rights, and all. That's hugely different from charging that amount for a single FRAND-encumbered patent.
Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".
I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.
Looks like Anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....
You didn't actually read Qualcomm's document on what their royalty rate is based on did you? The silly name-calling becomes even more comical when you you don't bother to read fully. Take a look at the document linked in post 22, page 2 specifically, and then comment again if you'd like to.
The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
Takes one to know one?
The product is the Quaalcom chip. Not the iPhone. That is the point. The Point is not how the royalty is priced.
It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.
Takes one to know one?
It could probably help in recognizing one. But IANAJ. IANAL either.
Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html
Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.
I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.
The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
Aside from the fact that you're making things up.....
1. Motorola and Google have made it clear that 2.25% was the price PER patent.
2. Motorola and Google are the only ones charging that amount on the final product price.
3. If we accept your figures, then Apple would be paying $100 per iPhone in license fees or many of billions of dollars last year. Why is it that these massive fees never show up on Apple's financials or the financials of the licensors?
Clearly, your wild assertion is wrong.
Aside from the fact that you're making things up.....
1. Motorola and Google have made it clear that 2.25% was the price PER patent.
2. Motorola and Google are the only ones charging that amount on the final product price.
3. If we accept your figures, then Apple would be paying $100 per iPhone in license fees or many of billions of dollars last year. Why is it that these massive fees never show up on Apple's financials or the financials of the licensors?
Clearly, your wild assertion is wrong.
What did I make up? Any specifics? When did Google or Motorola contend the 2.25% royalties applied to each individual patent they contribute to a standard? How much is Apple paying in licensing fees? Just who is making stuff up? Surely you have links to show it isn't you.
You didn't actually read Qualcomm's document on what their royalty rate is based on did you? The silly name-calling becomes even more comical when you you don't bother to read fully. Take a look at the document linked in post 22, page 2 specifically, and then comment again if you'd like to.
That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.
"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomm’s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm’s existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomm’s expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomm’s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm’s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."
Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.
It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.
Yes. Your link supports your point. I wonder what royalty amount they collect on cars with built in telephony? Must be a sweet number, don't you think?
And, unlike Samsung, that is as you note the wholesale and not the retail price. Big difference.
In the end, it does not matter how the amount is calculated. What does matter is that Apple (or any company really) is treated fairly with respect to pricing applied to other manufacturers using chips with that same patent set. Obviously, in this case, it has not been. All other arguments, including how royalties are priced are immaterial to that central question.
Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.
The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.
the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.
Oh give me a break.
But it does seem to me that this court is trying to get a truce on all sides.
That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.
"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomm’s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm’s existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomm’s expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomm’s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm’s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."
Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.
I might also add that charging a percentage on a smartphone and a dumbphone, if it's by overall price, is hugely punitive for the smartphone. In effect, Qualcomm would be getting paid for the inclusion of a camera, memory, etcetera. I'd challenge that in court in a heartbeat!
That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.
"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomm?s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm?s existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomm?s expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomm?s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm?s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."
Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.
So you really believe that when Qualcomm says the royalty applies to a "complete, end user subscriber device" they mean a chipset? Plainly not as a chipset would not be a subscriber device.
So you really believe that when Qualcomm says the royalty applies to a "complete, end user subscriber device" they mean a chipset? Plainly not as a chipset would not be a subscriber device.
I think that's going to be hotly contested (they get 3.25% of the profit on the camera, the memory, etcetera?), but I concede your point. You are apparantly not a Big S.H.I.T. after all (although quoting from Scott Moritz doesn't add points in your favor...).
However, the fact that Qualcomm has a lock on 3G tech and to a lesser degree on 4G tech does not mean that they're not including FRAND payments to many, many others out of that 3.25%.
please define troll. Anybody that disagrees with you? Anybody that isn't salivating pavlov-style over everything apple? If they say anything critical at all, then they should be ignored or criticized?
Please don't feed the troll haters. Oh, dang. That's me.
this!
Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html
Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.
I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.
The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
Well said.
He does have conflict of interest.
I think that's going to be hotly contested (they get 3.25% of the profit on the camera, the memory, etcetera?), but I concede your point. You are apparantly not a Big S.H.I.T. after all (although quoting from Scott Moritz doesn't add points in your favor...).
However, the fact that Qualcomm has a lock on 3G tech and to a lesser degree on 4G tech does not mean that they're not including FRAND payments to many, many others out of that 3.25%.
I'm sure there are and Qualcomm themselves tell you how to do it: If you've got some patents of your own you'd like to share, we'll take that into consideration and adjust the rate accordingly.
BTW, thanks for keeping an open mind.
V
Well said.
He does have conflict of interest.
Not well said. Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent that's FRAND-encumbered. Qualcomm gets 3.25% for a collection of FRAND patents. Big difference.
It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.
Your link doesn't prove anything of the sort. It simply says 3.25% of the device. From Qualcomm's perspective, the device is the chip.
See Sacto Joe's link.
Or:
http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/10/...e-3g-goldmine/
Royalty rates are calculated based on 2006 QualComm revenues,
Qualcomm revenues would be for the chip only - not the entire consumer product.