Hacker News Reader

Comment by faragon | Hacker News Reader

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com