Perhaps I am a bit slower than usual today, but what does BOM have to do with gross or net SALES?
BOM refers to the build cost which is how Qualcomm bases a licensees royalty payments. I don't believe I mentioned either gross or net sales so I've no idea why you brought it up.
Living where you do, you have the luxury of saying 'no weapons.'
Pease don't generalize your bucolic, pastoral Swiss existence to the rest of the world.
It's the child workers that enrage me the most, I understand the need for military protection in South Korea against the North but I will not support any company that profits from weapons, regardless of the situation. After doing some more research Samsung is active in weapons bazaars selling to other countries. Self preservation I might slide, war profiteering not a chance. Yes I have that luxury and I thank God every day that I live here. Probably the only country not to be touched by major conflict in 500 years. I'm not long for this world and I think this is a good thing to pass on to my children. So you might roll your eyes at my statement but I will not compromise my values, apathy for such things has got to stop.
That's not correct. Qualcomm clearly and explicitly states that a licensee's royalty basis is the cost of the completed device (Total BOM rather than the retail selling price tho) and not just a chipset. Research it for yourself if you have any doubt. Had you already done so you'd know what Qualcomm bases it on rather than guessing. A good start would be visiting Qualcomm's own website. They don't hide it.
Be aware that there are few companies that monetize their IP as effectively as Qualcomm. In licensing royalties alone they put right at $2B in the bank in just the last quarter!
EDIT: By the way, Qualcomms estimated current royalties average for devices using their CDMA/3G/4G IP is 3.3% of the total device bill of materials. That's up a tiny bit from the 3.2% per-device royalties from the previous quarter. http://djcs.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/cxb/analystpdf/argus/74752510350.pdf
Right. So if a Qualcomm chip is used in a Cadillac because of their OnStar handsfree connection, then they get 3.3% of $50,000?
It's the child workers that enrage me the most, I understand the need for military protection in South Korea against the North but I will not support any company that profits from weapons, regardless of the situation. After doing some more research Samsung is active in weapons bazaars selling to other countries. Self preservation I might slide, war profiteering not a chance. Yes I have that luxury and I thank God every day that I live here. Probably the only country not be touched by major conflict in 500 years.
Do you have any idea how many companies use child labor? The fact is that there are hand made products that are best made by smaller hands. Is it right? No of course not but we live in a world with a lot more wrongs than child labor.
Right. So if a Qualcomm chip is used in a Cadillac because of their OnStar handsfree connection, then they get 3.3% of $50,000?
I don't think so.
If there's a communication device in the car that uses Qualcomm licensed IP that would be the completed device, not the car that completed device is installed in nor a simple chip. You don't think things thru before commenting sometimes
Disagree and have hard evidence to prove me wrong on what Qiualcomm bases royalties on? I'd love to see it.
Do you have any idea how many companies use child labor? The fact is that there are hand made products that are best made by smaller hands. Is it right? No of course not but we live in a world with a lot more wrongs than child labor.
So then I should just let it go, continue supporting these corporations that turn a blind eye. No. I'm sorry, if I can help it I will not support such things. Samsung is now part of my banned corporation list.
Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed? I would really hate too believe a governing body like the ITC acted Willy Nilly. I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. I don't know, I'm just asking, is this normal in America?
What is normal in America is a whole lot of litigation with crazy verdicts. It's so difficult to tell what a court will decide, so many people sue knowing that their chances of a settlement is good, if they don't ask too much. For the leader of USA or a state to overturn a court's decision is commonly done as a pardon, which is a bit different in this case, but it has always been possible.
Perhaps I am a bit slower than usual today, but what does BOM have to do with gross or net SALES?
BOM refers to the build cost which is how Qualcomm bases a licensees royalty payments. I don't believe I mentioned either gross or net sales so I've no idea why you brought it up.
Because that's what's under discussion, if you read.
It's the child workers that enrage me the most, I understand the need for military protection in South Korea against the North but I will not support any company that profits from weapons, regardless of the situation. After doing some more research Samsung is active in weapons bazaars selling to other countries. Self preservation I might slide, war profiteering not a chance. Yes I have that luxury and I thank God every day that I live here. Probably the only country not to be touched by major conflict in 500 years. I'm not long for this world and I think this is a good thing to pass on to my children. So you might roll your eyes at my statement but I will not compromise my values, apathy for such things has got to stop.
I am certainly not rolling my eyes. I am simply pointing out that where you stand spends on where you sit.
The end result of all of these lawsuits is absolutely NOTHING. Nothing has changed, nothing has been banned, costs have remained the same (or gone down). Nothing, as a result of all these patent suits, has changed.
So both companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for nothing.
So then I should just let it go, continue supporting these corporations that turn a blind eye. No. I'm sorry, if I can help it I will not support such things. Samsung is now part of my banned corporation list.
Would you prefer that they turn to prostitution? The sad fact is that some of the kids need to work in order to survive. Many countries just don't have child welfare services to help them.
Obviously the White House cannot veto court decisions or tell courts what to do (the ITC is a trade agency, not a court).
He quotes the Veto letter from Mr. Froman to the ITC, that in fact Samsung can still seek fair royalties in court. They just can't extort patent hold up with SEP's. Thats when he makes the above comment that the White House can veto the ITC because it is not a court and not part of the Judicial system in the US. It is a trade agency. That is why companies can appeal cases from the ITC to the US Court of appeals which is Part of the Judicial Branch of government. Which can't be vetoed by the president.
Got ready this afternoon to waste some time browsing that site and wondering if Samsung $bought$ that judge at ITC. It looks like something really really is / was wrong with that judge at ITC.
Very VERY wrong .....
And I have a strong feeling Obama's gangs figured that out ... but of course we are not privy to their discoveries.
".. using equipment made by Samsung to fabricate those chips as well...."
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi
no one is challenging that.
Actually I am. Almost 99% of chip fabs including Samsung buy there equipment from highly specialized companies that make the equipment for them here is a good site to look at literally thousands of companies most people never hear of who manufacture "Wafer" machines and support equipment.
It is good to see that there is a brake on Samsung's appalling tactics. But I won't really be happy until Samsung are forced to pay every last dollar that they owe Apple for their flagrant rip-off of Apple's design and IP. Sue them, Apple, and keep suing them. Don't rest until you have won.
@KDarling wrote, “That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.”
Maybe you've not had kids, and/or your parents never told you: Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
Anti-trust and pro-competition laws have been in flux since they first went on the books, over a century ago. We're not going to stop with the trust-busting that worked against Standard Oil. I personally felt that dropping the absolutely rock-solid case against Microsoft was a disservice both to consumers and also Microsoft. (Although the chickens took a decade to come home to roost, Microsoft got lazy and settled into being comfortable dominating the Enterprise and desktop, causing it to miss the last three tech revolutions that its skills could've addressed.)
The same for Samsung. Two years ago, astute analysts wrote that SEPs were like parking meters: great for collecting some money day-in and day-out, but not the bazookas you needed to block competition. Those guidelines have been in effect in Europe for a while, and Samsung is damn well aware of them — they withdrew their SEP claims for injunctions there.
In the good ole US of A, we've morphed rather more erratically toward the same understanding, that injunctions over SEPs are harmful and can be tolerated only in VERY limited circumstances (circumstances that don't apply with Apple). Samsung pretends as if it never got the memo, but that's just PR/propaganda/lawyering; they've known for a while this was coming, just hoped they could keep it up a bit longer.
Boo hoo for no longer being allowed to abuse SEPs.
Comments
It's the child workers that enrage me the most, I understand the need for military protection in South Korea against the North but I will not support any company that profits from weapons, regardless of the situation. After doing some more research Samsung is active in weapons bazaars selling to other countries. Self preservation I might slide, war profiteering not a chance. Yes I have that luxury and I thank God every day that I live here. Probably the only country not to be touched by major conflict in 500 years. I'm not long for this world and I think this is a good thing to pass on to my children. So you might roll your eyes at my statement but I will not compromise my values, apathy for such things has got to stop.
Right. So if a Qualcomm chip is used in a Cadillac because of their OnStar handsfree connection, then they get 3.3% of $50,000?
I don't think so.
Do you have any idea how many companies use child labor? The fact is that there are hand made products that are best made by smaller hands. Is it right? No of course not but we live in a world with a lot more wrongs than child labor.
If there's a communication device in the car that uses Qualcomm licensed IP that would be the completed device, not the car that completed device is installed in nor a simple chip. You don't think things thru before commenting sometimes
Disagree and have hard evidence to prove me wrong on what Qiualcomm bases royalties on? I'd love to see it.
So then I should just let it go, continue supporting these corporations that turn a blind eye. No. I'm sorry, if I can help it I will not support such things. Samsung is now part of my banned corporation list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Right. So if a Qualcomm chip is used in a Cadillac because of their OnStar handsfree connection, then they get 3.3% of $50,000?
I don't think so.
Qualcomm would get 3.3% of the OnStar device cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed? I would really hate too believe a governing body like the ITC acted Willy Nilly. I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own courts, what's the use of having them when all it takes is a veto to overturn them. I don't know, I'm just asking, is this normal in America?
What is normal in America is a whole lot of litigation with crazy verdicts. It's so difficult to tell what a court will decide, so many people sue knowing that their chances of a settlement is good, if they don't ask too much. For the leader of USA or a state to overturn a court's decision is commonly done as a pardon, which is a bit different in this case, but it has always been possible.
Because that's what's under discussion, if you read.
I am certainly not rolling my eyes. I am simply pointing out that where you stand spends on where you sit.
Hardly. Your'e discussing Switzerland. I'm at least replying to posts on SEP monetization and pertinent to the thread topic.
The end result of all of these lawsuits is absolutely NOTHING. Nothing has changed, nothing has been banned, costs have remained the same (or gone down). Nothing, as a result of all these patent suits, has changed.
So both companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for nothing.
Would you prefer that they turn to prostitution? The sad fact is that some of the kids need to work in order to survive. Many countries just don't have child welfare services to help them.
Unlike you, it seems I am capable of having more than one conversation at the same time, Mr. Tangentguy.
A helpful hint: As I said before, you really should learn to read better, so that you are actually focused on the issue at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I also really don't like to see the leader of a country overturning it's own court
The ITC is not a court. To quote Florian Mueller of Foss Patents speaking about the veto in his article http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/08/yes-we-frand-various-pending-itc.html ;:
Quote:
Obviously the White House cannot veto court decisions or tell courts what to do (the ITC is a trade agency, not a court).
He quotes the Veto letter from Mr. Froman to the ITC, that in fact Samsung can still seek fair royalties in court. They just can't extort patent hold up with SEP's. Thats when he makes the above comment that the White House can veto the ITC because it is not a court and not part of the Judicial system in the US. It is a trade agency. That is why companies can appeal cases from the ITC to the US Court of appeals which is Part of the Judicial Branch of government. Which can't be vetoed by the president.
The judge not only totally debunks the arguments Apple brought, he goes further and rules differently than the jury in the case recently decided in California US District Court, Apple v. Samsung on the question of patent exhaustion. He writes that he can't rely on that jury's verdict, because it arrived at contradictory conclusions. Something really is wrong with that jury's verdict, and now a judge at the ITC has said so. The rest of the reasons for utterly rejecting Apple's FRAND claims are fascinating and, to me, refreshing.
Got ready this afternoon to waste some time browsing that site and wondering if Samsung $bought$ that judge at ITC. It looks like something really really is / was wrong with that judge at ITC.
Very VERY wrong .....
And I have a strong feeling Obama's gangs figured that out ... but of course we are not privy to their discoveries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
".. using equipment made by Samsung to fabricate those chips as well...."
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi
no one is challenging that.
Actually I am. Almost 99% of chip fabs including Samsung buy there equipment from highly specialized companies that make the equipment for them here is a good site to look at literally thousands of companies most people never hear of who manufacture "Wafer" machines and support equipment.
http://www.semiconductor-manufacturing.net/Semiconductor-Equipment-Manufacturers.htm
Another good link is the Semiconductors Standards Organizations web page too http://www.semi.org/
I see. So when it's Cadillac, they get a portion of just the component involved. But when it's Apple, they get a portion of the entire device.
Can you say 'hypocrisy'?
It is good to see that there is a brake on Samsung's appalling tactics. But I won't really be happy until Samsung are forced to pay every last dollar that they owe Apple for their flagrant rip-off of Apple's design and IP. Sue them, Apple, and keep suing them. Don't rest until you have won.
@KDarling wrote, “That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.”
Maybe you've not had kids, and/or your parents never told you: Life isn't fair. Deal with it.
Anti-trust and pro-competition laws have been in flux since they first went on the books, over a century ago. We're not going to stop with the trust-busting that worked against Standard Oil. I personally felt that dropping the absolutely rock-solid case against Microsoft was a disservice both to consumers and also Microsoft. (Although the chickens took a decade to come home to roost, Microsoft got lazy and settled into being comfortable dominating the Enterprise and desktop, causing it to miss the last three tech revolutions that its skills could've addressed.)
The same for Samsung. Two years ago, astute analysts wrote that SEPs were like parking meters: great for collecting some money day-in and day-out, but not the bazookas you needed to block competition. Those guidelines have been in effect in Europe for a while, and Samsung is damn well aware of them — they withdrew their SEP claims for injunctions there.
In the good ole US of A, we've morphed rather more erratically toward the same understanding, that injunctions over SEPs are harmful and can be tolerated only in VERY limited circumstances (circumstances that don't apply with Apple). Samsung pretends as if it never got the memo, but that's just PR/propaganda/lawyering; they've known for a while this was coming, just hoped they could keep it up a bit longer.
Boo hoo for no longer being allowed to abuse SEPs.