If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:37:47 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. I see you admit that Qualcomm is engaged in value based pricing. no, they definitely aren't at all. not even close. I get the clear impression that you don't understand what is meant by value based pricing. i do, and it's not relevant here. that is engaged in value based pricing. There is nothing morally wrong with that, in the context of its actions. the ftc disagrees with you, as do numerous other companies. Right now the FTC doesn't agree or disagree with anyone. It has yet to hear the case. the ftc is suing qualcomm, so clearly they disagree with what qualcomm is doing. Here is the FTC's take on the situation. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...or-device-used or http://tinyurl.com/zjdqlqs See the note: "The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court." The FTC does not always find against the defendant. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 20:37:46 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: ... Bloomberg fundamentally misunderstood what was going on. Qualcomm wants to collect a certain sum by way of license and whether you express this as X% of the cost of the phone or 8X% of the cost of a chip is immaterial. nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero. I guess you never heard of value based pricing. i guess you haven't a clue. value based pricing isn't the issue. If you go up a few paragraphs you will see that you have stated the essence of value based pricing, and said it doesn't exist. if you go up a few posts, you will see that i never said what you claim i have. Is it your claim that you never said the following: "nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero." now go back one more level to put it into context since you clearly do not understand it. let me help you: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. And why should not be paid on the basis of the value of the device which could_not_be_made without Qualcomm's technology? qualcomm should be paid *only* for the value of the parts they provide. Qualcomm will argue that Qualcomms IP will make the parts considerably more valuable than cost. under no circumstances whatsoever should qualcomm (or any other company for that matter) be paid for parts they did not supply, manufacture or design. device makers are paying qualcomm when they use sony cameras, samsung memory, lg displays, synaptics fingerprint sensors and numerous other parts. that's ****ed up. If that's what is happening, but I suspect you have misunderstood it. qualcomm is entitled only for what they produce. no more. But what is it that they produce? Not just chips, but ideas. Sure Apple could make a device with all the bells and whistles of an iPhoneX but what would it be worth without the ability to communicate with the telephone network? It's not as if they have any alternative supplier to Qualcomm. which means qualcomm is abusing their monopoly position with frand patents. That is yet to be proved. it also has absolutely nothing whatso****ingever to do with qualcomm's absurd pricing, which you even agree is *illegal*. I've done no such thing. I don't know enough about the matter to reach any conclusion. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Here is the FTC's take on the situation. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...es-qualcomm-mo nopolizing-key-semiconductor-device-used or http://tinyurl.com/zjdqlqs See the note: "The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court." the point is that the ftc *does* think there's an issue, which is why they're suing. what do they know that you do not? The FTC does not always find against the defendant. maybe not, but in this case, the evidence is overwhelming against qualcomm. |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. And why should not be paid on the basis of the value of the device which could_not_be_made without Qualcomm's technology? qualcomm should be paid *only* for the value of the parts they provide. Qualcomm will argue that Qualcomms IP will make the parts considerably more valuable than cost. the cost of *their* parts isn't the issue. it's the cost of *other* *parts* that they had *nothing* to do with. under no circumstances whatsoever should qualcomm (or any other company for that matter) be paid for parts they did not supply, manufacture or design. device makers are paying qualcomm when they use sony cameras, samsung memory, lg displays, synaptics fingerprint sensors and numerous other parts. that's ****ed up. If that's what is happening, but I suspect you have misunderstood it. you suspect wrong. that's *exactly* what's happening. qualcomm is entitled only for what they produce. no more. But what is it that they produce? Not just chips, but ideas. *theirs*. not that from other companies. Sure Apple could make a device with all the bells and whistles of an iPhoneX but what would it be worth without the ability to communicate with the telephone network? It's not as if they have any alternative supplier to Qualcomm. which means qualcomm is abusing their monopoly position with frand patents. That is yet to be proved. in court, sure, but it's obvious what's going on. it also has absolutely nothing whatso****ingever to do with qualcomm's absurd pricing, which you even agree is *illegal*. I've done no such thing. yes you did, stating that it's well established case law to not charge higher prices for the same part. I don't know enough about the matter to reach any conclusion. yet you keep arguing. |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:14:24 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Here is the FTC's take on the situation. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...es-qualcomm-mo nopolizing-key-semiconductor-device-used or http://tinyurl.com/zjdqlqs See the note: "The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court." the point is that the ftc *does* think there's an issue, which is why they're suing. Correct, but that does not mean that (as you previously wrote) "so clearly they disagree with what qualcomm is doing." We won't know whether Qualcomm agrees or disagrees until the judge's decision is out. what do they know that you do not? I never said there was not an issue. The FTC does not always find against the defendant. maybe not, but in this case, the evidence is overwhelming against qualcomm. I must agree that some of their business practices do not look good. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:14:24 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. And why should not be paid on the basis of the value of the device which could_not_be_made without Qualcomm's technology? qualcomm should be paid *only* for the value of the parts they provide. Qualcomm will argue that Qualcomms IP will make the parts considerably more valuable than cost. the cost of *their* parts isn't the issue. it's the cost of *other* *parts* that they had *nothing* to do with. THat's your take but we will have to wait and see what the situation actually is. under no circumstances whatsoever should qualcomm (or any other company for that matter) be paid for parts they did not supply, manufacture or design. device makers are paying qualcomm when they use sony cameras, samsung memory, lg displays, synaptics fingerprint sensors and numerous other parts. that's ****ed up. If that's what is happening, but I suspect you have misunderstood it. you suspect wrong. that's *exactly* what's happening. I don't read that from the FTC's summary. qualcomm is entitled only for what they produce. no more. But what is it that they produce? Not just chips, but ideas. *theirs*. not that from other companies. Sure Apple could make a device with all the bells and whistles of an iPhoneX but what would it be worth without the ability to communicate with the telephone network? It's not as if they have any alternative supplier to Qualcomm. which means qualcomm is abusing their monopoly position with frand patents. That is yet to be proved. in court, sure, but it's obvious what's going on. it also has absolutely nothing whatso****ingever to do with qualcomm's absurd pricing, which you even agree is *illegal*. I've done no such thing. yes you did, stating that it's well established case law to not charge higher prices for the same part. I can't find where I said that. I don't think I said that. I don't know enough about the matter to reach any conclusion. yet you keep arguing. I don't think you know enough about the matter to reach a conclusion either, and yet you keep arguing. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Here is the FTC's take on the situation. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...rges-qualcomm- mo nopolizing-key-semiconductor-device-used or http://tinyurl.com/zjdqlqs See the note: "The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court." the point is that the ftc *does* think there's an issue, which is why they're suing. Correct, but that does not mean that (as you previously wrote) "so clearly they disagree with what qualcomm is doing." We won't know whether Qualcomm agrees or disagrees until the judge's decision is out. qualcomm will obviously disagree with any decision against them, as they have with the existing claims against them. what do they know that you do not? I never said there was not an issue. The FTC does not always find against the defendant. maybe not, but in this case, the evidence is overwhelming against qualcomm. I must agree that some of their business practices do not look good. that's what i've been saying. |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: qualcomm wants more money for a given part (in this case, a baseband modem) if the device has more memory, a fingerprint sensor, a wide gamut display, a pencil or various other features that qualcomm did not create and has no claim to. qualcomm is only entitled to be paid for what they created, that being the baseband modem, and not for stuff they didn't. And why should not be paid on the basis of the value of the device which could_not_be_made without Qualcomm's technology? qualcomm should be paid *only* for the value of the parts they provide. Qualcomm will argue that Qualcomms IP will make the parts considerably more valuable than cost. the cost of *their* parts isn't the issue. it's the cost of *other* *parts* that they had *nothing* to do with. THat's your take but we will have to wait and see what the situation actually is. it's not my take. under no circumstances whatsoever should qualcomm (or any other company for that matter) be paid for parts they did not supply, manufacture or design. device makers are paying qualcomm when they use sony cameras, samsung memory, lg displays, synaptics fingerprint sensors and numerous other parts. that's ****ed up. If that's what is happening, but I suspect you have misunderstood it. you suspect wrong. that's *exactly* what's happening. I don't read that from the FTC's summary. then you need to read a lot more. qualcomm is entitled only for what they produce. no more. But what is it that they produce? Not just chips, but ideas. *theirs*. not that from other companies. Sure Apple could make a device with all the bells and whistles of an iPhoneX but what would it be worth without the ability to communicate with the telephone network? It's not as if they have any alternative supplier to Qualcomm. which means qualcomm is abusing their monopoly position with frand patents. That is yet to be proved. in court, sure, but it's obvious what's going on. it also has absolutely nothing whatso****ingever to do with qualcomm's absurd pricing, which you even agree is *illegal*. I've done no such thing. yes you did, stating that it's well established case law to not charge higher prices for the same part. I can't find where I said that. I don't think I said that. you did, when i mentioned sandisk charging more for the *same* memory card if it goes into a top of the line slr versus a p&s. I don't know enough about the matter to reach any conclusion. yet you keep arguing. I don't think you know enough about the matter to reach a conclusion either, i do and yet you keep arguing. only in response to your ludicrous statements. |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
Is Your Browser Color Managed?
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:58:59 -0400, nospam
wrote: --- snip --- it also has absolutely nothing whatso****ingever to do with qualcomm's absurd pricing, which you even agree is *illegal*. I've done no such thing. yes you did, stating that it's well established case law to not charge higher prices for the same part. I can't find where I said that. I don't think I said that. you did, when i mentioned sandisk charging more for the *same* memory card if it goes into a top of the line slr versus a p&s. It still doesn't ring a bell. I've gone hunting and I found where you wrote and I replied as follows: imagine if sandisk charged a higher price for the exact same memory card if it were to be used it in a high end nikon slr versus a coolpix. The memory card is the end product. This is well covered in law. There are two aspects to this. First you can buy a license to use an inventors technology. Second, the inventor can sell a finished product. Nikon is not using Sandisk technology. Nikon is buying a finished product from Sandisk which is using Sandisk's own technology. When Sandisk sells its own product it doesn't require the purchaser to license the technology. But if the XYZ Battery Co wanted to use Sandisk technology in its own batteries, it would have to pay Sandisk a license fee. But I never said "it's well established case law to not charge higher prices for the same part." A seller can and does charge what he likes. I don't know enough about the matter to reach any conclusion. yet you keep arguing. I don't think you know enough about the matter to reach a conclusion either, i do and yet you keep arguing. only in response to your ludicrous statements. With your logic we will keep going forever. I'm trying to stop. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
have i managed to buy a camera with two faulty lenses | sean-sheehan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 21 | September 20th 10 05:37 PM |
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question | Stanislav Meduna | Digital Photography | 23 | December 22nd 05 06:18 PM |
Monitor calibration and color managed workflow question | Stanislav Meduna | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | December 22nd 05 06:18 PM |
Color Managed Slideshow Program | andre | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 01:13 AM |
Color Managed Slideshow Program | andre | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 01:13 AM |