Replies to post #15410 on Qualcomm Inc (QCOM)

[JeffreyHF]

Biz, it is apparent that the EU complainants have structured their argument in terms of the quantity of "essential patents" held, and Qualcomm defends by asserting the "importance" or "quality" of such patents. Give me a few patents that are at the heart and/or brain of the standard, rather than many at the fingers and toes, and I`ll be happier.
As for Ericsson stating or implying to Lucas van Eurotrash that it pays no net royalties to Qualcomm, I simply don`t believe that to be true, and it again emphasizes the depth to which Qualcomm`s Euro competitors will go, to diminish Qualcomm`s stature.
For years, Qualcomm has asserted its licensees pay the same royalties for WCDMA, as for CDMA2000,despite skepticism from the analyst and press communities. Once again, Qualcomm was correct.

[Ricardo Montalban]

Good pick up Biz. You are quite right.If Eric pays no royalties to Q for the wcdma then why is they phone they make still too costly for buyers? It obviously cant be Q's fault as they pay nothing to Q. Next fallacy is the issue of the amount of intellectual contribution made by Q to Wcdma. Understand that wcdma stands for wide band cdma. In other words it is cdma made to be used with wide band with rather than narrow band with. The only reason Ericy wanted it that was was to distinguish it from cdma so they could get some of the royalties too. They also put in intellectual property which made it backwards compatible with GSM, but the heart of the matter is, it was making the transition to cdma, the technology that for years they said cannot work. Once proven that it works and works better than GSM they got on board,but with the proviso that they got some of the royalty pie. Now they have the gaul to say the majority of the intellectual property in wcdma belongs to them. I guess the big lie repeated enough times cna become the truth for some peoplel