Hacker News Reader

Comment by faragon | Hacker News Reader

Do Intel and Samsung license their patented stuff in more fair terms than Qualcomm? I guess that Intel and Samsung want to get radio IP license for cheap (e.g. LTE stuff), and that's OK. BTW, can Qualcomm or Mediatek get x86 and OLED IP/patens for cheap, too? I would love Mediatek x86-compatible SoCs for 5 USD, and high quality 6" OLED screens for 15 USD.

View on HN

OLED and x86 aren't covered by FRAND, LTE is. When you push to make your patented tech part of a standard, you also agree to license it reasonably.

Then, could you explain me why Mediatek can not sell x86-compatible SoCs for 5 USD?

X86 is not covered by FRAND either?

Because it's not a standard?

x86 is a de facto standard.

The term "standard" in this context means "governed by a standardization body like 3GPP, etc." This is significant because the FRAND limitation comes not from legal restrictions on patents but from these standardization bodies themselves. "Yes, QCOM, you made a far superior air interface for radios. In recognition of your superior design, we will use your patents as our standard but only if you agree to license it to anyone on 'fair' terms."

As "fair" != free/gratis, I assume this is just a price discussion between Intel/Samsung and Qualcomm. So what is interpreted as "fair" for Qualcomm, it is not for Intel/Samsung. Result: if the FRAND limitation doesn't set explicit margins, this is going to get ugly for Samsung and Intel.

No, FRAND means that the licensing terms are fixed, equal and open to all and cannot be used to gain a competitive advantage.

Then, who is right, Qualcomm saying they're honoring the agreements, or Intel/Samsung? Both can not be right.

Qualcomm is most likely wrong and has been found guilty in at least three different courts. The FTC has been a bit slow in keeping up with other regulators. Qualcomm does have quite a bit of political and lobbying clout in the US -- ie, Qualcomm is a domestic company whereas most device makers are foreign.

That's what the lawsuit is to determine.

I'm guessing Qualcomm will lose.

Shouldnt then 3GPP do the FRAND enforcement ? After all it is 3GPP who made QCOM techs popular in the market.

!define de facto:

> Existing in actuality, especially when contrary to or not established by law

There is no standards committee approving X86 processor designs/features/functionality, with a goal of vendor interoperability, thus, there is no 'standard' for X86.

Yup, that means it's not a real standard.

That's why it's "just" a de facto standard, since it's still pretty much the only thing used in its product category.

There is nothing in the market to signal that Qualcomm is not licensing under FRAND. It's not like they have 80% market share.

Apple intel and Samsung have a combined market cap of 1.3 trillion. Qualcomm is 80 billion.

Is Qualcomm pushing their IP as an integral part of the LTE standard? Is Intel pushing the x86 as part of any official standard?

Intel has the de facto x86 standard, and has been hiper-protective regarding its IP. Why Intel and Samsung should expect Qualcomm giving away their strategic IP for cheap, risking their long-term survival? Also, Qualcomm is the "small" here, not Intel nor Samsung.

One is part of a FRAND agreement and the other one is not. That's all there is to it. 'De facto' standards have no weight here.

Unles the FRAND agreement includes pricing, this is just a price negotiation. I.e. if Qualcomm tell they're honoring the agreements, and Intel/Samsung they don't, both can not be right.

FRAND stands for "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory", and "reasonable" refers mainly to pricing[1]. So, yes, the agreements do include pricing - but the actual contract terms are incredibly vague, basically just restatements of the acronym with no details. To quote the FTC's original complaint:

> For instance, the ETSI intellectual property rights (“IPR”) policy requires standard-setting participants to commit to provide “irrevocable licenses on fair, reasonable and non discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms and conditions.” The TIA policy requires any SEP holder that wishes to monetize its essential patents to commit to license SEPs “to all applicants under terms and conditions that are reasonable and non-discriminatory . . . to the extent necessary for the practice of . . . the Standard.” The ATIS policy requires SEP holders to license SEPs “under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination” to “applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the standard.” [2]

What counts as a "reasonable" price is therefore a question for the courts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat...

[2] https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/170117qualc...

Not Mediatek, but Intel did actually license x86 cores to RockChip for use in low cost SoCs: http://www.cnx-software.com/2014/05/28/rockchip-x86-soc-inte...

But not for cheap (i.e. no 5 USD SoCs), and sold under the Intel brand. Intel and Samsung want to use Qualcomm IP for cheap. That's the point.

If x86 was an integral part of the LTE standard (or something similar) they we should expect Intel to make it available under FRAND terms.

Qualcomm is doing pretty the same as Intel did and does: protect investor value. So if it is OK for Intel and Samsung protecting their business, it is OK for Qualcomm doing the same.

LTE is a standard created by a standards body of which Qualcomm is a member. The standards body requires by contract that for things added to the standard that are covered by its members' patents, those patents are licensed under FRAND terms. This was not done here.

This looks like a price discussion between Intel/Samsung and Qualcomm for setting a "fair" price.

The article states:

> “Despite having requested a license from Qualcomm, Samsung cannot sell licensed Exynos chipsets to non-Samsung entities because Qualcomm has refused to license Samsung to make and sell licensed chipsets,” Samsung said in a filing. Qualcomm didn’t immediately respond to requests seeking comment on the filings.

So it is not a price discussion or getting something for cheap, but Samsung accuses Qualcomm to refuse licensing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com