Question.. Nokia is by far the Largest vendor of 3G handsets, with a SIGNIFICANT portion of Essential Patents in those standards..why would they not be entitled to AT LEAST the same rate that Qualcomm has licensed every two bit Chinese Vendor? In fact Nokia , Ericsson, NEC and Panasonic have also cross licensed Patents to Qualcomm and still are being unfairly discriminated as per their E.U. complaint!!!
Fully agree Ranger. The 3G wireless manufacturers all have be be thinking "Hmmmm.... If QCOM mgmt is comfortable charging twice as much for a single patent as the others with essential IPR in that video compression standard are charging for the entire pool of 160 patents, there is no telling what they actually have in the W-CDMA standard to support their 5% royalty demands. Maybe we ARE paying QCOM too much."
Demanding royalty rates that are not in proportion with their relative IPR contribution value has been Nokia's argument with QCOM re W-CDMA all along, and the following jury opinion in the Broadcom suit sure gave strength to that position.
Here is the opinion I'm talking about;
"Additional evidence of Qualcomm's effort to unfairly leverage the H.264 standard emerged during trial, with testimony that the company requested a royalty for a single patent allegedly reading on H.264 that is twice the amount charged by the entire MPEG LA licensing organization for its pool of 160 essential patents -- and with Qualcomm's attempt to enjoin Broadcom's future sales of H.264-compliant products."
If the Nokia led cabal is locked together on maintaining a 5% net royalty cap for W-CDMA(?)... I'm thinking that the sooner we see QCOM's mgmt come off their 5% demand for W-CDMA, the sooner we will see IDCC get it's well deserved(IMO) 1 1/2 to 2%.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
