|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 03:37 AM EDT |
If Qualcomm had more patents than Motorola, Motorola would've ended up paying
Qualcomm. What really happens is that they both sit down and haggle over what
each other's patents is worth to the other, then draw up a contract giving each
access to the other's patents plus a royalty rate and direction that makes up
the difference. Given those two, it probably ended up so close that they decided
to just call it a wash since it'd cost more to do the bookkeeping than the
difference would've amounted to.
That, of course, is where Apple has
heartburn. They don't have Qualcomm's patent portfolio to bring to the table,
but they want to pay the same kind of cash price as Qualcomm's getting. Which
obviously Motorola isn't going to go for.
It's not like that's unusual. I
go into a Subaru dealer with a pristine-condition low-mileage 2011 Outback to
trade in on a new Outback, I'm apt to get $16-18K in trade-in value (KBB
says $19K). That means I'm probably going to pay maybe $10-12K cash for
my new Outback. Now, if you go into that same dealer looking for that same new
Outback but you've got nothing to trade in, do you think you're going to pay
$10-12K? Nope. What I paid isn't just the cash that changed hands, it's also
the value of the car I handed over in trade. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 19 2013 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
| IANAL and as far as I am concerned these patents aren't patent eligible matter
so these patents should not exist (see Ian Al's post below).
But, to address
reality where they do existence
do the Motorola patents cover more than what
the Qualcomm chip can do on it's own? That is to say, does the Qualcomm chip
practice the patent in and of itself only? Or has Apple added something for the
patent to be practiced by the allegedly infringing product?
My
understanding, limited though it is, is that the Qualcomm chip will likely only
have Motorola licences for the patents that, in and of itself, it
practices.
Just because Qualcomm has a licence to all of Motorola's SEPs
doesn't mean that all Qualcomm chips will pass on patent exhastion rights to all
of Motorola's SEPs.
For example,
Qualcomm chip A practices Motorola
SEPs X and Y - selling price $10 - royalty to Motorola
$0.10
Qualcomm chip B practices Motorola SEPs X, Y and Z - selling
price $20 - royalty to Motorola $2.00
If Apple buys chip A and the
iProduct also practices Motorola patent Z, would Apple have a patent exhaustion
rights to patent Z?
It's conjecture, I know, but unless you are deeply
involved then it is probable that your scenario is lacking in specifics which
can explain Motorola's position.
j [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Thursday, March 21 2013 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
Simple question.
Bear in mind they are US patents. Were the Qualcomm chips used by Apple PRODUCED
FOR THE US MARKET?
If they are RoW chips, then they don't have a US patent licence. Simples. But
your simple story just doesn't fit reality, precisely because it's simple.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
