Home  ›  News  ›

Industry Giants Square Off Against Qualcomm Over 3G Patents

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 16 replies

Sad sad world................

chrisnyc

Oct 28, 2005, 11:46 AM
I just understand why a company needs to offer products in a competitive manner? XYZ company has patents and products, they should be able to sell and market it ANY WAY THEY WANT. If you don't like it, leave the planet, invent your own, OR just take the fight to the EU. All the naysayers, put yourself in XYZ corps shoes? what would you do, invest billions in inventing a product then be told by some monkey court how and what you can sell it for? Or how you have to configure it? Case in point the Microsoft debacle about MediaPlayer. Do you really think the average person, lets just say.... our parents, would rather have Windows come WITHOUT a media player? where they would have to search online for one? then end up getting one that has some sp...
(continues)
...
nextel18

Oct 28, 2005, 11:56 AM
i 100 percent agree.

its like saying you pay for patents, you pay for R&D, but if you are the leader in the industry you are considered to be a monopoly and considered to be targeted for anti-trust and other charges.

it is pathetic... whats the point of getting patents and paying a fortune for R&D, becuase you can just sue sue sue and the company would have to settle. lol.

qcom will always lead becuase of their managment, cash flows, patents, and R&D.
...
tropicalhaven

Oct 28, 2005, 6:36 PM
So, my understanding is that QualComm funded all R&D for WCDMA development?

Won't AT&T always lead in the telecom industry with their R&D and advanced network?

It's not being alleged that Qualcomm is acting that way because it is a leader in the industry, it is alleged that Qualcomm is using its position in the industry to prevent others from taking hold. Qualcomm is essentially trying to collect more royalties than the other patent holders, charging more for WCDMA to possibly to try to sway a change to CDMA2000.

Is it right for drug companies to overcharge use of medications just because the *can*?
...
Bugwart

Oct 29, 2005, 12:44 PM
Corporations are owned by their shareholders. The shareholders demand that the companies make money, consequently the R&D expenses must be paid for by customers. If this does not happen, the companies cease to exist.

AT&T is a red herring. They had some of the best R&D combined with some of the worst execution. Comaparing AT&T to QCOM is like trying to compare a snail to a dolphin.
...
tropicalhaven

Oct 30, 2005, 5:17 PM
Bugwart said:
Corporations are owned by their shareholders. The shareholders demand that the companies make money...

That statement made me think of Ford's Pinto fiasco, where Ford decided it would be cheaper to settle wrongful death suits against customers who bought the Pinto and died when it caught fire than it would to recall and repair the Pintos. Or the Firestone incident...
...
Bugwart

Nov 2, 2005, 12:46 AM
You are comparing totally unrelated things.

The Pinto decision was extremely stupid because the actual cost to Ford and it share holders was extremely high.

No one is accusing Qualcomm of building a Pinto. Far from it. The 6 cry babies acknowledge that they have not been able to produce as good a product as Qualcomm is selling. So rather than sink the money into R&D to come up with a better product, they went to Rent-a-Bully to try to beat Qaualcomm into submission.
...
tropicalhaven

Nov 3, 2005, 7:48 AM
Qualcomm is a coporation. Ford is a corporation. I was stating the fact that corporations are out to make money, some even willing to make more money at the cost of a human life.

I wasn't comparing the situations.
...
tropicalhaven

Oct 28, 2005, 6:55 PM
Out of curiosity, how would you feel if Qualcomm would be appointed regulator of the CDMA mobile phone industry in the United States. I mean the Sprint would have to approve which models it carried, would have to apply with Qualcomm for industry exclusives, would have to approve marketing of CDMA products or services with Qualcomms marketing department. Actually, Qualcomm could be the *exclusive* CDMA handset maker for Sprint and Verizon, while Cingular and T-Mobile would be allowed to compete for different bids on the handsets they sell?
...
Bugwart

Oct 29, 2005, 12:44 PM
And your point is?
...
tropicalhaven

Oct 30, 2005, 5:19 PM
My point is Qualcomm would take the consumer for all he's worth, just because Qualcomm would be able to do that.
...
Bugwart

Nov 2, 2005, 12:48 AM
Qualcomm is successful because they are selling the consumer a better product than the cry babies can make on their own.

NO one is forcing anyone to by Qualcomm IP. People buy it because it is better.
...
T-P

Oct 31, 2005, 9:54 AM
As far as i'm aware Nokia and Ericsson are biggest WCDMA patent holders. They laso make money by licensing them.

What comes to Quallcomm, it's not that they wouldn't be allowed to sell patents with the price they choose to, but that they're violating their promise to price these patents in certain way. That's how they got them included in the standard in the first place.
...
tropicalhaven

Oct 31, 2005, 5:44 PM
I was mentioning this to a friend who I found out uses the expression "pulled a Qualcomm..." to refer to a company that doesn't live up to its promise. He was telling me how Qualcomm persuaded companies to adopt CDMA but couldn't deliver the promised product with cdmaOne.

Any thoughts on this?
...
T-P

Nov 1, 2005, 3:49 PM
Don't know anything about that really, or about CDMA in general. CDMA as people speak about (cdmaOne etc.) are Quallcomm's proprietary, closed standards, unlike GSM and its derivatives that are open (don't know about WCDMA).

But then Quallcomm's are minority technologies, and GSM based ones the global standards. Or like GSM association boldly puts it, CDMA is an outsider technology.

Now with WCDMA Quallcomm is more important because they managed to get their share in it. Still, they have little role in people's lives outside the small CDMA based markets.

Sometimes Quallcomm is talked as something more important than it is, especially in American media.

So far the global wireless technology trends have been set by others, namely...
(continues)
...
tropicalhaven

Nov 1, 2005, 7:24 PM
T-P said:
So far the global wireless technology trends have been set by others, namely Europeans. I don't know how Quallcomm's attitude affects their success in the future, though.

I would expect that the Europeans will not want to deal with Qualcomm in the future now, where if Qualcomm was like Nokia, Ericsson, and the others, it probably would not have been a big deal. Possibly, Qualcomm is trying to delay the deployment of WCDMA based technologies so it can "brag" about how CDMA2000 is beating it by far to market?
...
Bugwart

Nov 2, 2005, 12:50 AM
Why would Qualcomm want to delay wCDMA when they make money by having wCDMA be successful? The Qualcomm web site shows all 3G, including wCDMA.
...
tropicalhaven

Nov 3, 2005, 7:50 AM
They may want to delay it to show that a 20% Qualcomm patent product is inferior to a 100% Qualcomm patent product.

They would much rather a 100% Qualcomm patent product be the global standard than a 20% Qualcomm patent product be standard with 80% of the global standard belonging to someone else.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.