The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents • Hacker News Board

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#111

Post by Pxtl » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 8:34 PM UTC

underlipton wrote: post #78

Pxtl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without drug patents drug discovery would completely stop . I'm not averse to looking at alternative models for providing revenue to the drug discovery and testing infrastructure (the current model of patents is flawed as hell), but if you like new medications like the COVID vaccines then you have to respect the important of protecting the incentive to create them.

>Without drug patents drug discovery would completely stop. I don't believe that, but I won't convince you. Instead, I invite you to try to convince yourself. Imagine a world where drug discovery happens without patents. Talk it out, falsify your propositions as you go, see if you can come up with something workable.

I don't doubt that a workable alternative could be invented (and could improve on the deep flaws in the drug patent system), but it would be absolutely necessary to implement that alternative before removing the drug patent system.

"Remove the drug patent system" = Upset Kanye

"Replace the drug patent system with a new way to encourage drug discovery besides the honor system" = Smiling Kanye

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#112

Post by TaylorAlexander » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 9:01 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #103

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We like to talk about the specific effects of the patent system (protects the little guy, etc), but we rarely talk about the cumulative effects of it. The more I look at the small innovators, they are all hungry to improve upon things the big companies are sitting on for 20+ years with a big moat to protect them, and I really get to thinking that in aggregate we are doing more harm than good. A response I hear is "th…

We have already run the experiment nearly 100 years ago shortly after WW2 (and prior to the Bahl Dole act) on what happens when people have idea requiring capital investments that aren't protected by risk mitigation IP. People don't invest because of first mover disadvantage in game theory.

Genuinely curious for my own research, can you give me more information? What exactly happened? What projects failed to gain investment? What projects subsequently were only funded due to IP restriction grants?

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#113

Post by jauntywundrkind » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 9:19 PM UTC

fbdab103 wrote: post #76

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #45

In the west, Qualcomm won. There's basically no one else even trying to make medium or high end chips. The patent encumbrance seems total. Even the mega giant Apple is reportedly just giving up on trying. And at huge real world impact, as well as market drive. Apple designs tend to use a third or more of their phone motherboard's real estate supporting Qualcomm's forest of different parts required for cellular. It's…

I get technology is always advancing, but I do wonder what the landscape will look like in 10 years when a lot of these patents start to expire. As a consumer, it feels like we have been hitting diminishing returns for a while now. Sure, they will have released 11G, and all of the ads will tell me how vital it is the government can track me with millimeter precision, but I think all of my needs were already met with…

I have a lot of hope the open core movement is going to help, but right now it's still bonkers hard and expensive & special to attach a good modern bus to a chip. Having ram or USB3+ or PCIe or soon CXL - much less BT or wifi! - is a totally different kind of feat that open silicon seems far off from. The LiteX folks come to mind as deserving as big nod here but I think mainly fpga not basic targeting. A connected computer still feels so far off.

It's pretty interesting seeing some plateau forming commercially. The new Intel n100 - n30p chips look awesome. But they compete with mini-pc systems built around 20-65W desktop chips from 3-10 years ago that have a huge cheap second hand market. And they are a bit more power efficient but not vastly, producing similar power. But, good news, Intel & oems can have new systems using these chips on the market for competitive prices. Being able to compete with your own secondary market is a great sign to me.

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#114

Post by mensetmanusman » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #112

mensetmanusman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have already run the experiment nearly 100 years ago shortly after WW2 (and prior to the Bahl Dole act) on what happens when people have idea requiring capital investments that aren't protected by risk mitigation IP. People don't invest because of first mover disadvantage in game theory.

Genuinely curious for my own research, can you give me more information? What exactly happened? What projects failed to gain investment? What projects subsequently were only funded due to IP restriction grants?

The Bayh-Doke Act at 40 : J health Polit Policy Law (2022)

Anything by William B. Bonvlian

Vitamin D fortification is a fun one, involved the creation of WARF in madison and proceeded Bayh Dole.

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#115

Post by underlipton » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 11:42 PM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #111

underlipton wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Without drug patents drug discovery would completely stop. I don't believe that, but I won't convince you. Instead, I invite you to try to convince yourself. Imagine a world where drug discovery happens without patents. Talk it out, falsify your propositions as you go, see if you can come up with something workable.

I don't doubt that a workable alternative could be invented (and could improve on the deep flaws in the drug patent system), but it would be absolutely necessary to implement that alternative before removing the drug patent system. "Remove the drug patent system" = Upset Kanye "Replace the drug patent system with a new way to encourage drug discovery besides the honor system" = Smiling Kanye

You can use an intermediary and (quickly) transition. I'm not concerned about preserving economic value or whatever, just research and expertise. It would be nice to get this done before a crisis that tests the system (again).

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#116

Post by underlipton » Tue, Dec 12, 2023, 11:48 PM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #107

underlipton wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pessimists don't have a monopoly on reality, and society isn't obligated to limit itself to your low expectations just so that you can feel good about being right. Face the reality that the status quo is unsustainable. Throw off your wishful thinking that things can go on like this without repercussion.

rather than me wasting even more time responding, why don't you go forth and pursue your all-encompassing patent solution, and report back on how it went?

And so we circle back around to the character of the status quo, where powerful lobbying groups have made it untenable to do anything without just straight-up murking them first. I suppose your suggestion was right: it truly is "100% or nothing." I appreciate your endorsement for the campaign to completely wreck these people's livelihoods for the greater good of society. Hope to see you on the front lines.

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#117

Post by jauntywundrkind » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 1:04 AM UTC

ksec wrote: post #93

fomine3 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd count Taiwanese MediaTek as "western", maybe at least half

Mediatek took more market share from Qualcomm every single year and yet somehow the narrative is still Qualcomm has a monopoly.

MediaTek consistently offers far more value/$, which makes them seem less concerning. For a while they were second tier offerings, but increasingly, they're just fantastic pieces of equipment. The Retroid Pocket 4+ was announced today with the Dimensity 1100 processor - 4x A78 cores, 9 GPU cores - and it looks like a super tight mini-Deck; $200.

Beyond a value assessment, if you look at who licenses whose patents, it's MediaTek paying handsomely to license a ton of Qualcomm patents. That happened in November 2009. I wonder how many new patents MediaTek has had to license to keep going, versus how many they're 3/4 of the way to done having to license.

I truly like your point! I think a reversal of perspective is totally due here. But so far, MediaTek has been winning marketshare imho by playing a hella competitive game, where-as Qualcomm seems to be ultra expensive chips that consistently under-deliver on their promises. MediaTek also seems to be available in a wider range of systems, where-as Qualcomm chips seem to only be available on a very limited range of products. I wish Qualcomm was at least more competitive; the 8cx series could have been a value chip, but was hot and systems were still far too expensive.

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#118

Post by acdha » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 1:05 AM UTC

senderista wrote: post #55

er4hn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is valuable for those outside of Qualcomm to understand why they have the role that they do in the mobile space. Having worked there as well I have two observations: - So much of that wall of patents was undergrad level CS concepts with ", for mobile device" tacked on the end. Paraphrasing, don't sue me (kidding..), but that was the gist of it. - Their actual development process was pretty bad. I submitt…

About a decade ago I had to help with due diligence on a potential acquirer in the San Diego area. Qualcomm was the largest tech employer there and from the developers I talked to they seemed to have a terrible reputation at least among software folks.

Around the turn of the century I was working for a web development company there and we had done clients Qualcomm was approaching for J2ME apps - the kind of stuff we take for granted now, but clearly potentially of interest. I took a look at their developer docs and it looked pretty gruesome – far behind even the 90s web on almost everything – but it was the only game in town for a lot of phones.

One of our sales guys was working with a now-famous brewery & they were interested in a mobile friendly store locator since they had far less distribution back then. I tossed together a basic PoC using a crude geolocation system which worked well enough and we were thinking it might be worth trying. A while later they started to respond to our questions on pricing – which started at $50k per carrier for the privilege of being offered for sale, plus over half of the sale price, and that was the floor: they wanted to see the corporate balance sheet so they could decide on an acceptable percentage of their TOTAL revenue, even if most of it had nothing to do with mobile sales. Everyone said “haha, no!”, and dropped it.

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#119

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 5:49 AM UTC

fbdab103 wrote: post #75

Scoundreller wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was that? They had naming rights to a Major League Baseball & football stadium from ‘97 to 2017. Maybe good for recruitment but seemingly pointless on the consumer side to maintain the contract: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Stadium But I get it that in sports, sometimes the big cheques are written because you can.

>Also in 1997, the facility was renamed Qualcomm Stadium after Qualcomm Corporation paid $18 million for the naming rights.[8] The naming rights belonged to Qualcomm until 2017, after which the rights were purchased by San Diego County Credit Union. Surprisingly cheap! Not that I think it is a good use of money, but less ostentatious than I expected.

I assume naming rights would cost a certain amount per year.... Not be something you can buy and then potentially resell later for more money.

Re: The Secret Behind Qualcomm's Margins? Patents

#120

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:56 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #119

fbdab103 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also in 1997, the facility was renamed Qualcomm Stadium after Qualcomm Corporation paid $18 million for the naming rights.[8] The naming rights belonged to Qualcomm until 2017, after which the rights were purchased by San Diego County Credit Union. Surprisingly cheap! Not that I think it is a good use of money, but less ostentatious than I expected.

I assume naming rights would cost a certain amount per year.... Not be something you can buy and then potentially resell later for more money.

Pretty sure most sponsors would include an exit clause just in case. Sure there would be penalties, but if the stadium can re-lease for more, they should play ball.