« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: question 

By: zzfan in IDCC | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 05 Jun 12 3:24 AM | 410 view(s)
Boardmark this board | InterDigital Communications
Msg. 45331 of 48237
(This msg. is a reply to 45328 by bim24)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

The point is to avoid hybrid licensing. IDCC should charge a set royalty rate period. Every manufacturer pays the same creating a level playing field. Forget about fixed and offer strictly per unit licensing. Actively pursue infringers for the mutual benefit of the company and its licensees. Ask the help of the licensees in enforcing the inventions against infringers. Let there be no confusion as to FRAND rendering legal actions defenseless. Every licensee should be offered the same opportunity for performance based discounts such as year over year volume increases and prepayment activities. Sales reporting and payment due dates should be the same across the board. IDCC will be able to accurately forecast expected revenue. Whoops

Sorry, I have run out of gas. Will try again tomorrow.

MO
zz




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
question
By: bim24
in IDCC
Mon, 04 Jun 12 10:07 PM
Msg. 45328 of 48237

when the company signs a fix fee lic.... the money paid/collected is regardless of volume.

they go on projections on unit volume for the rate. if they insist on some kind of volume escalator to adjust the rate or monies paid, could it also not work the other way? i.e. what if in exchange for the volume escalator clause, the manufacturer also wants it backwards...

give some money back if they don't sell anything (especially for new market entrants) close to the predicted volume.

so does idcc insist on hybrid model (good or bad) or just take the fixed fee monies?

apparently, they do the latter.


« IDCC Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next