However, QCOM's rates did run afoul of China's anti-monopoly regulations (such as they are). QCOM paid close to a billion dollar fine and THEN licensed or re-licensed (I am not certain how many of the license announcements involved new licenses) a whole bunch of manufacturers in China. Most of them are bit players but perhaps their cumulative contribution is measurable. To my knowledge, IDCC has yet to announce a Chinese license reached after their settlement with the NDRC.
loophole73, it looks like Qualcomm wasn't quite as confident about eight years ago. Yes their patents are very strong, but as we know, litigation can be a bitch (even for QCOM) when you're up against deep pockets - this article is eight years old:
<<What led to the breakthrough just hours before the trial in Delaware was about to begin? On July 23 a German federal patent court ruled that a Qualcomm GSM patent asserted against Nokia was invalid, the third consecutive court to conclude that Qualcomm's patent claims against Nokia were without merit. Britain's High Court and the U.S. International Trade Commission also rejected Qualcomm GSM claims. But it was the Delaware case that was the most important in the dispute, deciding the key issue of W-CDMA royalties. Analysts speculate that Qualcomm may have settled because it feared it wouldn't win that one, either.
Qualcomm was effectively asking for a royalty rate of about 4.5% of the phone's average selling price, an amount "which is fairly crippling in an industry with operating margins of 5% to 15%," according to a research note from mobile-industry analysts in the London office of Dresdner Kleinwort. Nokia wanted to pay less than 3%. "With almost the entire industry on the side of Nokia and with the principles of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) terms being widely accepted by almost all industry players for the longer-term well-being of the industry itself, we believe that the legal argument may have been in Nokia's favor," the research note said.>>
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
