قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Technology https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/smyrwpoii/p2/ Qualcomm did not have a full licensing negotiating power, he testified

Qualcomm did not have a full licensing negotiating power, he testified



  note-9-3223

Samsung has long used Qualcomm chips in its devices.


Angela Lang / CNET

Qualcomm has no power when it comes to negotiating license agreements, a company manager said on Friday. Instead, handset makers have the potential to achieve conditions they consider to be more favorable, he said.

Fabian Gonel, senior vice president of licensing strategy and legal advisor to Qualcomm's licensing business, said on Friday in court that Samsung, Sony Mobile and others have reached agreements with Qualcomm that differ from their normal pacts. He noted that Qualcomm did not stop giving them chips while the license agreements were being challenged and added that there is no part of Qualcomm's license agreements that can not be negotiated.

"We had a provision that had to refer to compliance with the export rules [that was] considered to be untouchable," said Gonel. "But at some point someone wanted to touch it and it was an easy touch."

Gonell's testimonies on Friday shed some light on Qualcomm's licensing practices. He tried to counteract Apple's statements and others that they felt they had no choice but to accept license terms they did not like in order not to lose access to the Qualcomm chips.


Now playing:
Watch This:

FTC vs. Qualcomm: Why You Should Care



02:11
Samsung and Qualcomm needed two years to sign a new license agreement, said Jonathan. "It was all unusual," said Tonnel. "It was an incredibly individual deal, almost everything was a problem, Samsung is very complicated, they are very difficult negotiators."

What Samsung has completed has paid Qualcomm a pre-paid license fee "more than average", said Gonel. Samsung then transfers Qualcomm's patents and cross-licensed its entire patent portfolio. The amount of risk sharing royalties is variable and is based on how well Samsung phones are sold, he said.

In the case of Sony Mobile, they ultimately agreed on a royalties fee that is lower than Qualcomm's typical, said Gonel.

Qualcomm fought the Federal Trade Commission in the courtroom in San Jose, California on January 4th. On Tuesday afternoon FTC completed his case against the company, and since then Qualcomm has been defending.

FTC blames Qualcomm for a monopoly on wireless chips, forcing customers like Apple to work exclusively with Qualcomm and charging excessive license fees for its technology using its no license no chips policy. But Qualcomm claims the FTC case is based on "inadequate legal theory". He also said customers are choosing their chips because they are the best and never stopped providing processors to customers, even when they are fighting for licenses.

There is no license, no chips

no chip policy "is the basis of FTC's Qualcomm lawsuit, Qualcomm sells processors that connect cellular phone telephones, but also licenses its broad portfolio as a group. Fee – based on the sales price of the end device, usually a phone – the manufacturer can use all of Qualcomm's technology, which is the manufacturer of hands-on phones, not chipmakers

To gain access to Qualcomm's chips , for which cm to be on the brink of wireless innovation, the phone maker must first sign a patent license agreement with Qualcomm. "Qualcomm has long been a leader in the 4G LTE and is ahead of competitors in the emerging 5G market. from Samsung, are prone to using its modems, but FTC claims that such a requirement damages competition and cemented Qualcomm's monopoly power – $ 7.50 royalty for the iPhone – to keep access to Qualcomm chips.

"We saw an increase of more than $ 1 billion a year in licensing, so we had a gun in our head," Williams said, explaining why Apple signed another licensing agreement in 2013, although it is unhappy with the terms. He added that Apple wants to use Qualcomm chips for its newer devices, but Qualcomm declined to sell the processors for the iPhone.

Other companies like Huawei and Lenovo made similar comments during their testimony. But on Friday, Gonell said Qualcomm had never stopped supplying chips to companies during contract negotiations and used the example of Samsung and Sony to show that companies can insist on different terms in their agreements.

He noted that Oppo and Vivo have stopped paying Qualcomm for more than a year because of a licensing dispute, while Huawei is also interrupting payments. Apple, through its contract makers, has not paid for licensing Qualcomm technology for more than two years. But Qualcomm continued to supply all of his chips, said Tonnel.

"If there is a licensee who disputes the terms of his license, we continue to deliver chips if they want them," he said.

The Battle for Licensing

FTC, assisted by the chip manufacturer Intel and Apple, filed a claim against Qualcomm two years ago. The United States says Qualcomm has a monopoly on modem chips and is harmful to competition by trying to maintain its power. Qualcomm's "excessive" rates of copyright do not allow competitors to enter the market, raise the cost of telephones and, in turn, injure consumers who have faced higher headphone prices.

FTC in the process is called witnesses by companies like Apple Samsung, Intel and Huawei and called on experts to testify to alleged damage Qualcomm licensing practices have caused the mobile industry. Experience has revealed the inner workings of the most important smartphone technology business, showing how vendors are fighting for dominance and profit.

When licensing a phone manufacturer, Qualcomm charges an upfront fee and then collects fees based on the sale price of Honolulu on Friday. When Qualcomm first licenses its CDMA technology, it charges 5% royalty on phones. This percentage declined when 4G LTE came out and China set a new, lower rate in November 2017, 3.25%, then Qualcomm released through its licensing base. This move also limits the value of royalty-based handsets to $ 400, even if the device is sold for triple.

Gonell said on Friday that Qualcomm's full license portfolio is $ 20 per device and $ 13 for Qualcomm's main patents.

Qualcomm claims that its wide portfolio of patents and innovations justify its fees. CEO Steve Mollenkoff, who took the position a week ago to protect the company's licensing practices, saying his company is selling chips to smartphone makers is the best for all players, and is the easiest way to license technology.

Gonell repeated these comments, noting that licensing mobile phone technology at the phone level is commonplace in the industry. He said that licensing all of Qualcomm's technology to chip makers would not make sense, Qualcomm said at the beginning of the case.

FTC said Qualcomm's refusal to grant licenses to its rivals is part of its effort to preserve its monopoly. Judge Lucy Koch agreed in November and decided that Qualcomm should license its wireless patents to chip to its competitors with chips like Intel.

"We are talking about cellular patents, standards are written in a way that describes consumer equipment," Gonell said on Friday. "If you are licensing at the chip modem level, you will also need to make device-level licensing."

He noted that such a practice would "make licensing much more cumbersome and less effective."

NASA is 60 years old: The space agency has taken humanity away from each other and has plans to go further.

Take it to extremes: Mix foolish situations – erupting volcanoes, nuclear crashes, 30-foot waves – with everyday technology. Here's what's happening.


Source link