To anyone:
I made this comment some months (or was it years) ago: the holder of a patent can change anything they want for its use. The users only options are to pay the freight or find a different methodology to implement the technology that doesn't infringe.
Qcom doesn't care what IDCC charges nor does getting a lower rate from IDCC enhance Nokia's bargaining position. If QCOM really has valid patents (or even one valid patent) and nokia uses it, Qcom can ask whatever it wants for the license.
The only time comparative rates come into play is during jury trials when jurors need some benchmark to attribute license fees, damages, etc.
Now, to my point. I would much rather see IDCC demand 5% royalty for any one true, valid, essential patent than see them think that they can get an easy victory with Nokia by offering a cheep benchmark for Nokia's battle with Qcom. In fact, it is troubling that IDCC's royalty demands are so low. It raises the question that perhaps these patents are not essential or not valid and therefore not as valuable as we have all been led to believe.
JMHO, comments welcome,
Q
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
