Intel opens fire in solo ITC filing in support of Apple and calls Qualcomm 'abusive,' anti...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 23
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,932member
    You violate FRAND and patent exhaustion.  You're pretty much doomed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 23
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,769member
    foggyhill said:
    wood1208 said:
    Qualcomm has right to defend it's IP as well ask for fair/reasonable compensation. Either you buy from someone or develop your own. It appears, Qualcomm is in jam when too many strong fighting against.
    Nobody agrees double dipping, fees based on whole device, or  extorsion level fees for Ip used in standards is fair, no country courts or judge
    That bolded portion is incorrect. While royalties based on ASP (aka royalties on a completed device) are sometimes deemed inappropriate/abusive in certain licensing contracts the practice itself is NOT illegal and in fact has been specifically found acceptable and fair by some courts. One of the more recent to deem it an acceptable royalty basis, even going so far as to tell Qualcomm the percentage of the finished product price they can use for calculating the licensing money due,  is the nation of China.

    So basing royalties on the price of a completed device using the patented invention(s) is not in and of itself wrong in the eyes of the law, and in fact is often used. Other factors are considered before the "fairness" of it can be determined. 

    If anyone is actually interested in understanding better the common IP licensing models and why companies might use one instead of another or why a licensee might prefer a different model than the IP owner does see here. It could be worse. At least the old 25% rule has fallen from grace:
    http://www.gunntwynmore.com/uploads/1/5/6/6/15662264/report_-_an_overview_of_commonly_used_royalty_rate_methodologies.pdf


    edited July 2017
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 23
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    jbdragon said:
    They gave our their IP under FRAND terms.  That way there is a single standard.  But that gives them monopoly power also.  They are clearly abusing that fact.  (Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory-FRAND).  to do with.  Apple is really paying a lot of money as iPhone's are not cheap.  A lot more than most companies.  

    I think, Qualcomm reads the first part of that acronym in a slightly different way. Fair, reasonably abusive....
    edited July 2017
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.