Blue
I have wondered the same and concluded that Qcom and IDCC differ philosophically about licensing. Qcom does not want to be your buddy or make any tailored licenses and IDCC apparently likes the idea of more than a royalty relationship. Qcom does not seek large upfront money and IDCC seeks a two year estimate in the inception.
Remeber Blue, the OEM's did not call IDCC a tax collector, our COO did. Everybody understands that royalty is the proven method for being compensated for invention and there is nothing bad or shameful about it. IDCC has the wrong mindset. With the recent economy, we should look for less front money just to get the folks started. Why should an OEM borrow money before selling their products to pay IDCC 2 years worth of royalty. It makes no sense from a business standpoint to continue their 2g strategy into 3g. You make your money on the come just as everybody else in the industry to aid the successful 3g launch. If IDCC would license on a pay as you go with discounts based on volume, then more companies would be ready to license and get those units produced and sold. This deferred revenue game is OK in a robust economy, but fails incentive wise in a recovering economy. Forget about a lower rate with high front money and set a standard rate on pay as you go. I think they would be surprised at the increased interest they might find by a change in philosophy.
MO
loop
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
