Industry reaps the benefits of AMD leadership

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8B5CVSO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down

<quote>

In particular, Broadcom alleged Qualcomm's licensing deals violate its
agreement to provide fair licensing terms that are part of
telecommunications industry standards. It also claimed Qualcomm charged
discriminatory royalties, and engaged in exclusionary and
anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone technology and
chipsets.

</quote>

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:

> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120592833.219307.266380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8B5CVSO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > In particular, Broadcom alleged Qualcomm's licensing deals violate its
> > agreement to provide fair licensing terms that are part of
> > telecommunications industry standards. It also claimed Qualcomm charged
> > discriminatory royalties, and engaged in exclusionary and
> > anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone technology and
> > chipsets.
> >
> > </quote>
> >

> >
> No, you are mistaken. This seems to be an example of Rambus leadership.
> Isn't this exactly what Rambus was accused of, getting IP in a standard
> then playing licensing games?
>
> Are you familiar with the standards process?
>

I've certainly had my ear chewed off often enough about Rambus and
JEDEC.

"It also claimed Qualcomm charged discriminatory royalties, and engaged
in exclusionary and anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone
technology and chipsets." That sounds remarkably similar to AMD's
claims against Intel.

I'll agree with you that the first sentence is more Rambus than AMD.
That is to say, the first sentence alleges violation of a contract
agreement pursuant to a standards-setting process. The second alleges
discriminatory practices with an anti-competitive effect/intent.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120592833.219307.266380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8B5CVSO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
>
> <quote>
>
> In particular, Broadcom alleged Qualcomm's licensing deals violate its
> agreement to provide fair licensing terms that are part of
> telecommunications industry standards. It also claimed Qualcomm charged
> discriminatory royalties, and engaged in exclusionary and
> anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone technology and
> chipsets.
>
> </quote>
>
> RM
>
No, you are mistaken. This seems to be an example of Rambus leadership.
Isn't this exactly what Rambus was accused of, getting IP in a standard
then playing licensing games?

Are you familiar with the standards process?

del cecchi
 

keith

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,335
0
19,280
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:21:49 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:

>
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120592833.219307.266380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8B5CVSO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> In particular, Broadcom alleged Qualcomm's licensing deals violate its
>> agreement to provide fair licensing terms that are part of
>> telecommunications industry standards. It also claimed Qualcomm charged
>> discriminatory royalties, and engaged in exclusionary and
>> anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone technology and
>> chipsets.
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> RM
>>
> No, you are mistaken. This seems to be an example of Rambus leadership.
> Isn't this exactly what Rambus was accused of, getting IP in a standard
> then playing licensing games?
>
> Are you familiar with the standards process?

Of course Robert is. He's simply a net-troublemaker, willing to argue
any point no matter how asinine. You should know this by now.


--
Keith
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120610854.308015.323080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Del Cecchi wrote:
>
>> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120592833.219307.266380@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8B5CVSO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
>> >
>> > <quote>
>> >
>> > In particular, Broadcom alleged Qualcomm's licensing deals violate
>> > its
>> > agreement to provide fair licensing terms that are part of
>> > telecommunications industry standards. It also claimed Qualcomm
>> > charged
>> > discriminatory royalties, and engaged in exclusionary and
>> > anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone technology and
>> > chipsets.
>> >
>> > </quote>
>> >
>
>> >
>> No, you are mistaken. This seems to be an example of Rambus
>> leadership.
>> Isn't this exactly what Rambus was accused of, getting IP in a
>> standard
>> then playing licensing games?
>>
>> Are you familiar with the standards process?
>>
>
> I've certainly had my ear chewed off often enough about Rambus and
> JEDEC.
>
> "It also claimed Qualcomm charged discriminatory royalties, and engaged
> in exclusionary and anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone
> technology and chipsets." That sounds remarkably similar to AMD's
> claims against Intel.
>
> I'll agree with you that the first sentence is more Rambus than AMD.
> That is to say, the first sentence alleges violation of a contract
> agreement pursuant to a standards-setting process. The second alleges
> discriminatory practices with an anti-competitive effect/intent.
>
> RM
>
The accusations against Intel seemed to be related to hardware while the
accusations against Qualcom appear to be IP related in that I think they
own the key patents on CDMA cell phone technology. So to the extent that
Qualcom participated in standardization activities and signed the usual
"reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing agreement, Broadcom might
have a case, if the licensing was in fact not "reasonable and
non-discriminatory".

Why are you such an adamant Intel defender? I would think that you, like
many folks in the computer field, would be more agnostic, taking your cue
from the relative merits of the products as you see them.

del cecchi
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8B5CVSO0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down

Broadcom files antitrust suit againt Qualcomm - Telecommunications -
Wireless Technologies - Technology, Hardware and Equipment - Fiber
Optics - Wireless - Computer Hardware - Company Announcements
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7B6C47FCE1%2D02CD%2D4D84%2DB39A%2D00ADDA04CA55%7D
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >
> > "It also claimed Qualcomm charged discriminatory royalties, and engaged
> > in exclusionary and anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone
> > technology and chipsets." That sounds remarkably similar to AMD's
> > claims against Intel.
> >
> > I'll agree with you that the first sentence is more Rambus than AMD.
> > That is to say, the first sentence alleges violation of a contract
> > agreement pursuant to a standards-setting process. The second alleges
> > discriminatory practices with an anti-competitive effect/intent.
> >

> >
> The accusations against Intel seemed to be related to hardware while the
> accusations against Qualcom appear to be IP related in that I think they
> own the key patents on CDMA cell phone technology. So to the extent that
> Qualcom participated in standardization activities and signed the usual
> "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing agreement, Broadcom might
> have a case, if the licensing was in fact not "reasonable and
> non-discriminatory".
>

>From the article Yousuf cited

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7B6C47FCE1%2D02CD%2D4D84%2DB39A%2D00ADDA04CA55%7D

<quote>

In its suit, Broadcom claims that Qualcomm's cell-phone customers "fear
retribution from Qualcomm if they use any significant quantity of
chipsets" from a competitor.

In some ways, the suit mirrors claims Advanced Micro Devices made last
week in its antitrust suit against Intel. AMD alleges Intel is abusing
its market power to coerce computer makers and vendors into shunning
AMD's products.

</quote>

If I'm seeing things, I'm not the only one seeing them.

Whatever profound difference you are trying to emphasize, I'm not
getting it. So what if the details and leverage are slightly different
and involve IP. In the end, Qualcomm is trying to control who buys
what by using market power. And, whoever wins in the courtroom, the
lawyers will win at the bank.

> Why are you such an adamant Intel defender? I would think that you, like
> many folks in the computer field, would be more agnostic, taking your cue
> from the relative merits of the products as you see them.

I'd prefer not to be seen as an adamant Intel defender, but, if that's
the way you see me, then that's the way you see me.

I don't see much future in AMD for reasons that I've explained. I
don't see benefit in this action to anyone but the lawyers.

RM
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 6 Jul 2005 03:24:28 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Del Cecchi wrote:
>> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> >
>> > "It also claimed Qualcomm charged discriminatory royalties, and engaged
>> > in exclusionary and anticompetitive practices in supplying cell phone
>> > technology and chipsets." That sounds remarkably similar to AMD's
>> > claims against Intel.
>> >
>> > I'll agree with you that the first sentence is more Rambus than AMD.
>> > That is to say, the first sentence alleges violation of a contract
>> > agreement pursuant to a standards-setting process. The second alleges
>> > discriminatory practices with an anti-competitive effect/intent.
>> >
>
>> >
>> The accusations against Intel seemed to be related to hardware while the
>> accusations against Qualcom appear to be IP related in that I think they
>> own the key patents on CDMA cell phone technology. So to the extent that
>> Qualcom participated in standardization activities and signed the usual
>> "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing agreement, Broadcom might
>> have a case, if the licensing was in fact not "reasonable and
>> non-discriminatory".
>>
>
>>From the article Yousuf cited
>
>http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7B6C47FCE1%2D02CD%2D4D84%2DB39A%2D00ADDA04CA55%7D
>
><quote>
>
>In its suit, Broadcom claims that Qualcomm's cell-phone customers "fear
>retribution from Qualcomm if they use any significant quantity of
>chipsets" from a competitor.
>
>In some ways, the suit mirrors claims Advanced Micro Devices made last
>week in its antitrust suit against Intel. AMD alleges Intel is abusing
>its market power to coerce computer makers and vendors into shunning
>AMD's products.
>
></quote>
>
>If I'm seeing things, I'm not the only one seeing them.

Myopia seems to be a commn complaint.:)

>Whatever profound difference you are trying to emphasize, I'm not
>getting it. So what if the details and leverage are slightly different
>and involve IP. In the end, Qualcomm is trying to control who buys
>what by using market power. And, whoever wins in the courtroom, the
>lawyers will win at the bank.

For the Rambus vs. Qualcomm issue, its a question of who is following whom
here. They've both been in the vanguard of IP ambushes, dry-gulches and
hold-ups - they both use the same tricks and at times they seem to
alternate as to who pulled them first. One of Qualcomm's tactics is double
charging: they charge the chip maker for the IP and then want to charge the
PCB assembler or cell phone mfr for the same IP err, "usage".

At the same time, they are having the chips foundried in their own name and
selling them to assemblers, undercutting their IP licensees - there's no
doubt it is their intent to monopolize the entire 3G market and impose a
CDMA tax on every single cell phone in the world... this despite having
participated in "standards" committees where "amicable", mutually
beneficial arrangements, have been thrashed out... which included *some* of
their IP but not all of it and not only theirs.

One fly in their ointment: they already lost their case against TI.
Possibly Broadcom has been emboldened by that. At any rate the resemblance
to AMD Intel is a umm, *BIG* stretch. CDMA was apparently a brilliant
"idea"... that's all - allowing scumbag lawyers to live off it by endorsing
the hi-jacking of an industry would be wrong. At that point the comparison
to AMD/Intel descends to the level of your inflammatory AMD/SCO suggestion.

>> Why are you such an adamant Intel defender? I would think that you, like
>> many folks in the computer field, would be more agnostic, taking your cue
>> from the relative merits of the products as you see them.
>
>I'd prefer not to be seen as an adamant Intel defender, but, if that's
>the way you see me, then that's the way you see me.

Just sell the Itanium system Robert, before it's just another
space-taker.:)

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS