Please send posts to telecom-digest.org, with userid set to telecomdigestsubmissions, or via Usenet to comp.dcom.telecom
The Telecom Digest is made possible by generous supporters like the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) at M.I.T.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In , Monty Solomon quoted this article:
With all due respect to our Moderator, you've got this all wrong. Even though you seem to bear a special animus toward Apple, please bear in mind that Qualcomm's egregiously anti-competitive practices, which the judge has branded illegal, gouged every company that licensed their technology (i.e., pretty much all makers of mobile phones, not just Apple), and therefore gouged their customers (you, me, and every other mobile phone user), who ended up paying more for phones.
Here's one of the most salient quotes from the Ars Technica article:
"Qualcomm's patent licensing fees were calculated based on the value of the entire phone, not just the value of chips that embodied Qualcomm's patented technology. This effectively meant that Qualcomm got a cut of every component of a smartphone--most of which had nothing to do with Qualcomm's cellular patents."
So when Samsung introduces a new Galaxy model that has a better screen, Qualcomm wants a slice of the value of that component, even though the screen has no bearing on the radio chip that Samsung is licensing from Qualcomm. When Apple introduces a new iPhone model with a better camera, Qualcomm demands a cut of that component's cost. And likewise with Motorola, Huawei, Nokia and virtually every other phone manufacturer. But of course, the phone makers ultimately pass those increased manufacturing costs along to their own consumers, who end up paying higher retail prices.
In concert with other illegal monopolist practices, most notably threating to cut off the supply of chips to any manufacturer who tried to use the wares of any of Qualcomm's rivals, the effect was to lock phone makers into using Qualcomm technology exclusively and to extract very high "rents" (in the economic sense of that term) from this ill-gotten monopoly. This is a classic example of a monopolist illegally abusing its market power. I for one am happy that Apple was one of the companies that fought Qualcomm most vigorously in court, because it is unlikely that the Federal Trade Commission would have opened or won this anti-trust case against Qualcomm without such testimony and evidence provided by victimized companies.
Bob Goudreau Cary, NC
***** Moderator's Note *****All wrong?" I am disinclined to acquiesce to your insinuation.
I don't bear a "special" animus toward Apple, just an ordinary, run-of-the mill distaste for it's marketing and sales practices.
Consider:
- Run-of-the-mill protocols hidden behind trademarked names.
- Proprietary connectors on every cable, thus forcing customers to pay exorbitant prices for every lost or damaged cord.
- Processor speeds that would make even IBM blush.
- An all-but-imbenetrably-cute user interface, with terms like "slide," "focus," "Column View," "metadata," and a nearly infinite number of iObscure names for devices, services, and software.
I don't dislike "Apple." I'm just astonished that millions of yuppies jumped on Steve Jobs' ever-larger bandwagon, and traded the appearance of exclusivity for the reality of basic business functionality.
Bill Horne Moderator