Replies to post #228272 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[bulldzr]

Thanks again. You are correct; since I only have a dial-up connection here I didn't download the large file.

So, according to you, it appears that I and many of us have been mistaken in believing those that maintained QCOM was collecting 5% royalty all this time.

[loophole73]

To all

These Qcom license terms are very important and the patent exhaustion problem is very much alive after the Sup Ct ruled in the LG case. All patent holders now have to be more careful in collection of royalty at the chip level. I believe and hope that the money from IFX is not royalty at all, but money for its jointly developed stack with Commeon which allows us to receive IPR royalty from Aapl. It also makes it fairly critical that we understand that royalty may come from HTC brand products and no royalty may come from the terminals being made for other manufacturers who are licensed. The tea leave idea of collecting from all component makers up the chain to the final product is now in serious question. It is no big deal because our rate may be the same, just from a single source. I am going to see if I can get some questions asked to WM during the next CC about patent exhaustion and how it relates to IDCC. In the LG case, Intel contracted with LG that it would inform its customers in writing that they could not use LG's IPR without a license and that the IPR did not pass through only to have the Sup Ct tell them they had exhausted their patent rights at the Intel chip level and could not seek royalty from the computer manufacturers purchasing the Intel chips.

MO
loop