Let's take a look at a key point in Huawei's document.
Don't look at such a simple passage, there is a huge amount of information behind it.
This brings us to the relationship between domestic mobile phone brand Huawei and Qualcomm. We know that Qualcomm's reputation in the industry has always been bad, and he is even called "patent hooligan". In 2020, Qualcomm's patent revenue alone will account for 2 1% of its total revenue, which is earned by lying down. In contrast, Huawei's patent revenue in recent years only accounts for four thousandths of the total revenue.
Take a 5G mobile phone as an example. In the past, before there were no national restrictions, all mobile phone manufacturers had to pay Qualcomm a patent fee of 5% of the sales price of each 5G mobile phone.
Ericsson charges a patent fee of about 30 yuan per mobile phone, while Nokia charges a patent fee of about 20 yuan per mobile phone. By contrast, you will find that Qualcomm charges by percentage. You said that the price increase of mobile phones is the result of continuous innovation in the fields of screen, charging technology and camera, which has nothing to do with Qualcomm's chips, while Qualcomm insists on charging patent fees for technologies that have nothing to do with them.
Why can Qualcomm be so overbearing? One of the important reasons is patent cross-licensing. For example, Huawei used patents from Qualcomm, and according to Qualcomm's request, Huawei's patents should also be opened to Qualcomm. In addition, other customers who use Qualcomm products can no longer charge their patent fees. Do you see it?
What does this have to do with "clarifying the relationship between the two sides through communication and consultation"?
In the past, Huawei shipped a lot of mobile phones, so Huawei turned a blind eye to this cooperative relationship, regardless of gains and losses. However, in the current context, Huawei's mobile phone market share has plummeted, business lines cannot be produced normally, products cannot be iterated normally, and market supply cannot be guaranteed. This is a great loss and challenge for any enterprise.
If the previous patent cross-licensing was for win-win cooperation, I can't use your patent now, or rarely use it. Should I continue to license my own patents to you for a large number of uses?
This has become something that Huawei urgently needs to sort out. I won't talk, and you're all quiet. Make this account clear, which is what I understand in the document, "clarify the relationship between the two sides through communication and consultation, and forge a team that is good at communication and consultation."
See what's going on.
There are often too many good deeds, and if you don't remember them, you forget them. They are used for spraying.
For example, this one claims that Huawei has no patent to charge patent fees. By the way, is the document issued by Huawei to collect patent authorization an internal joke?
I know many people will say, what's the use of more? They are all appearance patents. In this report, another data is that Huawei is far ahead with 2 1% of the essential patents of the 5G core standard, which is 9 percentage points higher than that of the second Samsung.
I know why Huawei has the confidence to collect patent fees, and it is clearly stated that it cannot be too low. Because it is too low, the income is lower than the return. Who will invest in research and development?