Replies to post #18032 on Qualcomm Inc (QCOM)

[stricklybiz]

Raglan, Thanks for that. Regarding this, however,". . . embroiled in several matters that are directly related" it seems to me that the fact the subject is FLO-related IPR might put it in an entirely different arena. [I do need to go back and read the entire piece we're discussing.]

[Jim Mullens]

RR, Re: MediaFLO and “"giving away" royalty free agreements”

As Jeffrey pointed out on the SI thread, nothing has changed with respect to the Q’s all inclusive IPR business model of “buy one, you get ‘em all”. The Q’s licensees pay a basic royalty rate of 4.xx% of the wholesale device ASP and get access to their complete IPR at that time plus all the new IPR added during the period of performance of that license. Therefore, the use of MediaFLO is incorporated into the basic royalty rate with no incremental add-on to that rate.

As you pointed out, the Q does actually receive incremental revenue from MediaFLO equipped handsets as no doubt those handset will have higher ASPs.

Also, per the Nokia license it appears that standalone devices (those without CDMA/WCDMA) are not covered by the Q’s basic license and as such those devices if equipped with MediaFLO would be royalty bearing. As you know, the Q has initiated legal action against NOK for infringing on their IPR for selling standalone GSM/GPRS/EDGE products.