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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 16:30:38 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 13:05:26 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

PeterN wrote:
On 6/5/2017 4:45 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote:

snip


some residential customers consider that to be worth the extra cost and
have business service at home, without a business.

You have no idea at all about how "issues resolved
faster" would happen Please sit in the corner and
listen.


Some listen without comprehending. And even if they
comprehend, won't admit they were wrong.

Poor nospam lives in a very difficult fantasy world!

In this case it may merely be that he is living in a different world
from you.

You seem to be that the practices of your previous employers are the
practices of every Telco world wide. There is no reason why that
should be the case.

One of the neat things about working in a
"Communications" company is the ability to do just
that... communicate. Whatever industry you or the next
person might work in, how often do the folks in that
industry actually talk and work with other companies
around the world that do the same things???

Trust that I had no choice but to learn not just what
Alascom and later ATT did, right from the start, but
Sprint, MCI, and Western Union, of course all the LEC's
too, not to mention working with major as well as minor
testboards in various European countries as well as the
Pacific Rim.

We all knew what everyone had in common, and we all knew
how everyone differed too. Add to that the cultural
changes that took place all around the US following the
breakup of the Bell System.

Nospam has no clue about the telecommunications
industry, and is making up everything he says. I'm not
guessing. It is not just a different world, he is
fantasizing what he thinks it must be. I'm just telling
you what it is.

I knew several people in the telecom industry in Chicago, and they
were in the industry for at least 40 years at various companies. The
business and residential repair sides *never* mixed.

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