Is Your Browser Color Managed?

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:01:30 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PAS wrote:

In what way are they charging for stuff they didn't create?
as i've said a few times already, by basing their licensing fees on
components and technology *not* from qualcomm.

qualcomm is entitled to license *their* technology only, not what other
companies have created.

do try to keep up.

Qualcomm have the right to devise any pricing scheme they want to
license their technology.

not for frand patents, they don't.

Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

that's what they're doing.

But they are still continuing to use the Qualcomm patents but without
paying for them. That's naughty and what this argument is all about.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Qualcomm have the right to devise any pricing scheme they want to
license their technology. Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

Yep. That's the way it works.

except when it's frand.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In what way are they charging for stuff they didn't create?
as i've said a few times already, by basing their licensing fees on
components and technology *not* from qualcomm.

qualcomm is entitled to license *their* technology only, not what other
companies have created.

do try to keep up.

Qualcomm have the right to devise any pricing scheme they want to
license their technology.

not for frand patents, they don't.

Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

that's what they're doing.

But they are still continuing to use the Qualcomm patents but without
paying for them. That's naughty and what this argument is all about.

that's not what they're doing.

what's happening is that apple is disputing the terms (as they should,
because the terms are absurd), and until the dispute is resolved, they
can't pay anything because it's not yet known how much to pay.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

who else charges different licensing fees due to components
completely unrelated to what's being licensed??

no answer, therefore qualcomm is the only one.

Your logic is faulty.

still no answer.

...waiting...

still waiting...

It seems as though you have lost the ability to use Google. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty_rate_assessment

patent licensing or buying parts is not a royalty payment and you still
have yet to name a company that does what qualcomm is doing.

People can buy parts but they still need a license to use them.

not necessarily. it depends on the part.

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.

so is a baseband modem chip.

perhaps a better example would be if you wanted to buy intel processors
for a product you're designing and intel told you the price depended on
whether your product was a nas, a dvr, a router, a laptop, a desktop or
a server, even though its the *exact* *same* *part*.

not only that, but if you make more than one product, you have to track
how many went into each one so you can be billed accordingly.

This is well covered in law.

then you agree that qualcomm is wrong.

or if a phone maker made a solid gold phone, qualcomm would get more
money because of the gold, not because anything qualcomm did.

it's bull****. simple as that.

I'm not going to continue with this until you show more evidence of
knowing something about the actual terms and payments than you
currently do.

the evidence is out there for those who want to find out the real story.

it is as i have stated, that qualcomm bases the price on parts and ip
not from qualcomm, which is wrong.

it's beyond belief that anyone could possibly see that as proper.

On Jun 1, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Qualcomm have the right to devise any pricing scheme they want to
license their technology. Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

Yep. That's the way it works.

except when it's frand.

WTF is “frand�?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 18:18:06 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In what way are they charging for stuff they didn't create?
as i've said a few times already, by basing their licensing fees on
components and technology *not* from qualcomm.

qualcomm is entitled to license *their* technology only, not what other
companies have created.

do try to keep up.

Qualcomm have the right to devise any pricing scheme they want to
license their technology.

not for frand patents, they don't.

Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

that's what they're doing.

But they are still continuing to use the Qualcomm patents but without
paying for them. That's naughty and what this argument is all about.

that's not what they're doing.

what's happening is that apple is disputing the terms (as they should,
because the terms are absurd), and until the dispute is resolved, they
can't pay anything because it's not yet known how much to pay.

Thank you for confirming that Apple are continuing to use Qualcomm
patents without paying for them.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

that's what they're doing.

But they are still continuing to use the Qualcomm patents but without
paying for them. That's naughty and what this argument is all about.

that's not what they're doing.

what's happening is that apple is disputing the terms (as they should,
because the terms are absurd), and until the dispute is resolved, they
can't pay anything because it's not yet known how much to pay.

Thank you for confirming that Apple are continuing to use Qualcomm
patents without paying for them.

you *really* don't understand what's going on.

if you dispute a purchase on your credit card, you don't have to pay
anything until it's resolved.

also,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...mm-fined-853-m
illion-by-south-korea-s-antitrust-agency-ix8csvth
South Korea¹s antitrust regulator slapped a record 1.03 trillion won
($853 million) fine*on Qualcomm Inc. for*violating antitrust laws,
the latest in a string of government actions that threaten the U.S.
chipmaker¹s most profitable business.
....
³Qualcomm, a holder of standard-essential patents as well as a
monopolistic service provider of modem chips from manufacturing to
sales, has violated its agreement to license patents on fair
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, known as FRAND,² the
commission said in a statement. Qualcomm offers*the rights to use all
of its*standard-essential patents, some of which cover the core
technology behind modern wireless systems, in a combined package.
Some of those inventions are used in industry standards.

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:


Qualcomm have the right to devise any pricing scheme they want to
license their technology. Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

Yep. That's the way it works.

except when it's frand.

WTF is ³frand²?

fair reasonable and non-discriminatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason...natory_licensi
ng
Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (RAND), also known as fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND), denote a voluntary
licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from
the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that
is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard. Put
differently, a F/RAND commitment is a voluntary agreement between the
standard-setting organization and the holder of standard-essential
patents. U.S. courts, as well as courts in other jurisdictions, have
found that, in appropriate circumstances, the implementer of a
standard‹that is, a firm or entity that uses a standard to render a
service or manufacture a product‹is an intended third-party
beneficiary of the FRAND agreement, and, as such, is entitled to
certain rights conferred by that agreement.

On Jun 1, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In iganews.com,
Savageduck wrote:


Qualcomm have the right to devise any pricing scheme they want to
license their technology. Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

Yep. That's the way it works.

except when it's frand.

WTF is ³frand²?

fair reasonable and non-discriminatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason...natory_licensi
ng
Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (RAND), also known as fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND), denote a voluntary
licensing commitment that standards organizations often request from
the owner of an intellectual property right (usually a patent) that
is, or may become, essential to practice a technical standard. Put
differently, a F/RAND commitment is a voluntary agreement between the
standard-setting organization and the holder of standard-essential
patents. U.S. courts, as well as courts in other jurisdictions, have
found that, in appropriate circumstances, the implementer of a
standard‹that is, a firm or entity that uses a standard to render a
service or manufacture a product‹is an intended third-party
beneficiary of the FRAND agreement, and, as such, is entitled to
certain rights conferred by that agreement.

You learn something new every day.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 19:02:58 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Apple has the choice to either pay or look
for other technology.

that's what they're doing.

But they are still continuing to use the Qualcomm patents but without
paying for them. That's naughty and what this argument is all about.

that's not what they're doing.

what's happening is that apple is disputing the terms (as they should,
because the terms are absurd), and until the dispute is resolved, they
can't pay anything because it's not yet known how much to pay.

Thank you for confirming that Apple are continuing to use Qualcomm
patents without paying for them.

you *really* don't understand what's going on.

if you dispute a purchase on your credit card, you don't have to pay
anything until it's resolved.

Patent disputes have been used for this purpose before and will keep
the dispute boiling until the patent expires.

also,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...mm-fined-853-m
illion-by-south-korea-s-antitrust-agency-ix8csvth
South Korea¹s antitrust regulator slapped a record 1.03 trillion won
($853 million) fine*on Qualcomm Inc. for*violating antitrust laws,
the latest in a string of government actions that threaten the U.S.
chipmaker¹s most profitable business.
...
³Qualcomm, a holder of standard-essential patents as well as a
monopolistic service provider of modem chips from manufacturing to
sales, has violated its agreement to license patents on fair
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, known as FRAND,² the
commission said in a statement. Qualcomm offers*the rights to use all
of its*standard-essential patents, some of which cover the core
technology behind modern wireless systems, in a combined package.
Some of those inventions are used in industry standards.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/30/ap...ts-in-ireland/
or http://tinyurl.com/yb9hul7x
The full URL says it all.

We could go on swapping quotes all day but what's the point? Most of
them are written by PR flacks at the behest of one party or another.
They are one of the weapons used in this kind of litigation.

Until some real news emerges I'll leave you to play on your own.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens