applecider
Sadly the settlement takes the FRAND issue off the table. Just once I’d like to see one of these FRAND holders forced to license their ip on FRAND terms, and have a court determine how that apportionment works.
About
- Username
- applecider
- Joined
- Visits
- 24
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 20
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 87
Reactions
-
Qualcomm shouldn't win iPhone import ban, says ITC judge
I second Tychos comments about clickbait and also despise qcom’s business practices.
A problem is that FRAND licensing has not been well defined by either courts or regulatory agencies responsible for adopting standards and their essential patents.
For instance the smallest unit upon which royalty should be based the radio chip or the entire phone is not agreed upon.
For those who don’t follow these issues QCOM has licensed patents to chip makers, but in some instances eg iphone wants patents based upon the final product rather than the part that uses the patent. Of course by this logic a high end BMW with Qualcomm’s chip would owe a royalty based on the cost of the car. QCOM has also wanted a royalty from chip makers and the final product so called double dipping.
What I find amazing is that their stock QCOM has risen despite the apple disputes and movement to INTL modem chips.
