Samsung, QCOM & TSMC – Win Win Lose

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Qualcomm and Samsung get one over TSMC.

  • Despite losing out to Samsung’s in house Exynos apps processor in the Galaxy s6, Qualcomm looks to be back on track for the flagship device in 2016E.
  • There were problems with the Snapdragon 810.
    • Firstly, in Samsung’s hands it caused its device to overheat.
    • I suspect that this actually had little to do with Qualcomm (see here), but it was an issue when it came to adoption of the 810.
    • Secondly, the Snapdragon uses a standard ARM designed processor rather than Qualcomm’s own design using ARM’s IP.
    • Qualcomm has long used its own designs in its chips and has been able to achieve better performance as a result.
  • Consequently, the Snapdragon 810 just did not work well for Samsung prompting it to use its in house processor.
  • However, the Exynos has no on board modem meaning that another modem chip is required which increases costs.
  • At the same time, Samsung has ramped up its 14nm production capacity and it looks like Qualcomm will be using that for the Snapdragon 820 rather than TSMC.
  • Qualcomm has typically used TSMC for its leading edge chips due to its superb execution capability at the leading edge.
  • This has three benefits for both Qualcomm and Samsung.
    • First. This will make the hurdle much lower for Samsung to use the Snapdragon 820 in its next flagship product.
    • This is because the total cost to Samsung Electronics of using Qualcomm will be meaningfully lower.
    • Instead of 49% gross margin accruing to TSMC, that margin will stay inside Samsung, significantly reducing the overall cost of using Qualcomm compared to its in house chip.
    • Second. Samsung will no longer have to use a companion modem as the 820 has the modem on board which will reduce costs further.
    • Third. As the Snapdragon 820 will use Qualcomm’s own processor design, the performance should be better.
  • This will also help Qualcomm’s gross margin as Samsung LSI is in ramp up phase and is still prepared to accept lower gross margin in order to gain share compared to TSMC which is holding steady at 49%.
  • The real loser here is TSMC.
  • Samsung has managed to get a technical edge over TSMC by going to 14nm early, which combined with keeping more revenues in house, can reap greater benefits by using Qualcomm than before.
  • Despite this benefit, I still see Samsung struggling to return to its former glory in handsets and am nervous that management has set market expectations too high.
  • I would prefer Microsoft or Google for exposure to the digital mobile ecosystem.

 

 

Xiaomi – Hardware heaven?

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Right strategy but where is the money?

  • Xiaomi has exactly the right strategy to develop a thriving ecosystem of its own but whether it can make money from it is another thing entirely.
  • There are three ways to monetise an ecosystem: selling hardware, selling advertising or selling subscriptions to one’s Digital Life services.
  • Xiaomi has chosen the hardware route and seems to be developing that by investing in many different device companies.
  • RFM research indicates that hardware is by far the best monetisation mechanism but it is also the riskiest.
  • Not only is organic growth in hardware grinding to a halt, but if one misjudges a product cycle, market share and margins can collapse in a matter of months.
  • RFM research has also identified that offering an ecosystem consistently across a range of devices is becoming an important factor when it comes to having a successful ecosystem.
  • Most ecosystem contenders and hardware makers have approached this problem by making all of the devices themselves, but Xiaomi’s approach is very different.
  • Xiaomi does this by investing in a range of start-ups whose products should then become part of the Xiaomi ecosystem.
  • So far Xiaomi has invested in around 20 start-ups but it plans to invest in a hundred more.
  • The latest addition to the family is Segway which has just been acquired by one of its hardware partners Ninebot.
  • Assuming that 4/5 start-ups never amount to anything, this would leave Xiaomi with around 20 different device types within its ecosystem with Xiaomi phones at the centre.
  • Assuming that Xiaomi’s ecosystem drives device preference, then these devices should all be able to command a price premium over competition, allowing them to generate higher margins.
  • However, Xiaomi will only be a minority owner in these companies meaning that it will not reap the full benefit from the ecosystem that it has created.
  • I suspect that there will be a revenue or profit share payable back to Xiaomi as the creator of the ecosystem which will help, but this will not take it into Apple’s league when it comes to revenue and profit generation.
  • However, other devices could be a meaningful factor in driving device preference for Xiaomi smartphones which would help it to increase pricing and earn a better return on its own smartphones.
  • Unfortunately, all of this is predicated on developing a thriving ecosystem.
  • Xiaomi is off to an excellent start with its media consumption offering and its app store.
  • However, it still only has 17% of Digital Life covered meaning that it has an awful lot more services to develop.
  • Furthermore, in its home market it is up against Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba and China Mobile all of whom have big ecosystem ambitions of their own as well as much greater resources.
  • Xiaomi has the first mover advantage but will have to invest heavily to stay ahead of its competitors meaning that margins are likely to stay low for some time to come.
  • Xiaomi has by far the greatest understanding of what is required to create a thriving ecosystem, but it is still uncertain whether it will be able to fully monetise it.
  • This is why when valuations of $45bn or even $100bn get waved around, I get concerned that an awful lot of success is already being priced into the equity of the company.
  • I would prefer to consider Lenovo’s potential IPO of its mobility division which may come at a fraction of the valuation despite its higher global market share and greater scale.

Yahoo! – Nowhere to go

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Yahoo! had little choice but to stay with Microsoft.

  • The changes that have been made to the search contract between Microsoft and Yahoo! are cosmetic and reveal how Marissa Mayer is still failing to breathe any real life into Yahoo!.
  • Microsoft and Yahoo! have extended their search agreement made in 2009 where Microsoft will power Yahoo!’s desktop search and pay Yahoo! a percentage of the advertising revenue as TAC (Traffic Acquisition Cost).
  • There are two changes:
    • First. The relationship is no longer exclusive meaning that Yahoo! can use other search providers (including its own).
    • Second. Sales teams have split responsibility along the fault lines with Microsoft dealing with all ads delivered by Bing and Yahoo! for its own Gemini advertising platform.
  • While this reads like an improvement in the terms for Yahoo!, in practice very little is likely to change.
  • Search is now effectively a one horse race with one challenger struggling along in distant second place.
  • Yahoo! effectively has nowhere else to go and whatever in house development it has attempted is clearly not good enough to replace Bing.
  • It was only a few quarters ago when it was widely thought that Marissa wanted to exit entirely from the deal with Microsoft and go it alone.
  • Clearly at the time she felt strong enough to do that but much has changed in the last 18 months.
  • Yahoo!’s revenues have continued to flounder despite $1.2bn of revenues in 2014A coming from mobile.
  • Furthermore, analysis of these figures in combination with Yahoo!’s assets shows that it underperformed its revenue potential in mobile by $4.4bn in 2014A (see here).
  • This combined with a lack of execution on integrating and improving its ecosystem and moving it into mobile, leaves Yahoo! in a weak position when it comes to negotiation.
  • This is why I suspect Yahoo! has agreed to renew this contract despite a clear desire to go it alone and it does not bode well for the future.
  • Yahoo! will report Q1 15E earnings on 21st April 2015 and I do not expect it to be a happy event.
  • I think that revenues have continued to drift sideways highlighting the underperformance of Yahoo! against its peers like Google, Facebook, and Twitter among others.
  • Yahoo!’s problems can be summed up in one word: execution.
  • The acquisition strategy has been excellent as Yahoo! has gathered a good offering of Digital Life services from which it can build a thriving ecosystem.
  • Furthermore it has a strong user base and high usage in the fixed internet upon which to build.
  • Unfortunately, acquisition is where the story has stopped as nothing seems to have been done with regard to putting them all together into a coherent, easy to use and fun way on mobile.
  • This is the single biggest challenge facing Yahoo! and until it begins to execute on this, its numbers will continue to drift sideways or downwards.
  • Yahoo! will dress up the story in many ways but the numbers speak for themselves.
  • Microsoft is a challenger that is far more likely to succeed and Google is the only way to be exposed to the Android ecosystem.

 

Netflix Q1 15A – The balance of power

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Everything depends on Netflix achieving scale.

  • Netflix reported Q1 15A results slightly below expectations but the subscriber growth was better than forecast and this continues to be the main driver of the shares.
  • Q1 15A revenues / EBIT were $1.57bn / $97.5m compared to consensus at $1.57 / $106m but all the attention was on the subscriber count.
  • Netflix added 2.28m subscribers in the US and 2.60m elsewhere to bring the total to 62.27m of which 59.62m (96%) are paying subscribers.
  • Total net additions of 4.88m subscribers in Q1 15A was ahead of company guidance of 4.1m which has been attributed to NetFlix’s increasing stable of exclusive shows headlined by House of Cards.
  • The company is starting to see some benefits of scale as gross margins in the US improved to 31.7% ahead of company guidance at 30.1%.
  • International, with its much smaller user base continued to see negative gross margins.
  • Guidance was pretty cautious with 2.5m net additions expected and revenues / EBIT of $1.47bn / $59 compared to consensus of $1.66bn / $132m.
  • This did nothing to halt the unbridled optimism based on the user numbers that sent the shares up 12% in after-hours trading.
  • As Netflix grows its user base and relies more heavily on its own, exclusive content, three main dynamics driving the business model emerge.
    • First. Netflix is becoming similar to a software company.
    • Netflix incurs low additional costs to deliver its exclusive content to additional users.
    • This means that if the company can continue to increase its user base then substantial improvements in gross margins are probable.
    • They are never going to reach the 90% that Microsoft can earn as the cost of delivering the content is a meaningful factor, but they should be able to reach levels far above where they are today.
    • Second. Netflix is becoming a data company.
    • A significant percentage of the domestic market are using its service and critically it knows far more about its users than the cable or satellite companies do.
    • This data gives Netflix the ability to suggest and curate content that it knows that its users will like based on their viewing habits.
    • This will mean it knows exactly to whom to market its new and existing shows making marketing much easier and much more efficient.
    • Netflix currently spends 12.3% of revenues on marketing which I think could be meaningfully brought down over time.
    • This data could also be used for advertising and a free tier of service but given almost everyone pays for the service today, this is unlikely to happen any time soon.
    • Third. If subscribers continue to grow, then the balance of power will begin to shift in its favour.
    • Content creators will increasingly realise that they have to have their content on Netflix to reach the mass market giving Netflix much more power when it comes to content rights negotiations.
  • All of these factors should have a positive impact on gross margin and OPEX over the long term but are completely dependent on Netflix’s ability to reach critical mass.
  • RFM’s ecosystem research strongly suggests that this critical mass will start to really factor in gross margin when the company passes 100m subscribers.
  • Netflix is now trading on 162x and 108x 2015E and 2016E PER and 4.8x and 3.9x 2015E and 2016E EV/Sales indicating that much of this margin story has already been priced in.
  • The revenue and critical mass element has clearly not been priced in, and this could be a source of upside if it becomes clear that Netflix will pass 100m subscribers.

Intel Q1 15A – Data centric

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Data centres rescue the quarter but not the year.

  • Intel reported Q1 15A results in line with reduced expectations but guided well thanks to the continued strength of the data centre.
  • Q1 15A revenues / EPS were $12.8bn / $0.41 which was exactly in line with consensus given the profit warning given earlier in the quarter.
  • As usual, the problem was the PC market but in this instance it was not the consumer but the small and mid-size businesses that bought fewer PCs than expected.
  • Last year, the ending of support by Microsoft for Windows XP drove many business to upgrade their PCs to Windows 7.
  • This trend drove the PC market to recover slightly in 2014A but the trend has ended more quickly than expected.
  • To keep the momentum going a pick-up in the laptop replacement cycle was needed which is something that I think can only be driven by tablet PCs. (see here).
  • Without this pick-up in the laptop replacement cycle, the result is a weaker than expected market.
  • I expect that this scenario will persist until users begin to understand how much better the use case for a tablet PC is over a laptop and make the switch.
  • Unfortunately, these advantages are not obvious and until Intel and Microsoft get their act together and start explaining the proposition, users are unlikely to bite.
  • The good news is the data centre where demand has been stronger than expected allowing Intel to guide better than feared.
  • Q2 15E revenues will be $12.7bn – $13.7bn ($13.2bn) which is slightly behind consensus of $13.5bn but clearly the market was braced for much worse following the profit warning in Q1 15A.
  • Intel also moved to account for weaker expectations overall for the PC market in 2015E by reducing its full year revenue forecast from mid-single digit revenue growth to approximately flat.
  • This puts an end to any hopes of revenue growth and moves Intel into line with RFM forecasts which is forecasting a decline of 1.3% to 311.8m units in 2015E.
  • Profitability remained strong as the mix shift towards the data centre is helping gross margins remain in the low 60s.
  • That being said, Intel is taking a more cautious stance to 2015E and is trimming capex and share buy backs to reflect its expectation that cash flow will be lower than originally budgeted.
  • Intel’s mobile business is on track to lose $3.2bn this year which is $800m less than last year but represents a huge investment.
  • Intel is effectively paying companies to make devices that use its chips and still none of these have gained any real traction in the market.
  • With every quarter that passes, Intel’s challenge to ARM in the mobile market weakens and throwing good money after bad is not helping.
  • Consequently, I do not see Intel mounting a credible challenge to ARM in the mobile market but at the same time ARM’s forays into PCs and servers have also not been successful.
  • Intel and Microsoft would be my top choices for ways to play a recovery in the PC market but for another year it looks like my hopes will be dashed.
  • In the long term, Microsoft and Google remain the best ways to play the digital ecosystem.

 

 

Nokia – Here and now

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

It is too early to sell HERE.

  • It seems that Nokia may be seeking to acquire part of Alcatel-Lucent (I presume the wireless assets) and to pay for it by selling the HERE business.
  • The acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent’s wireless business makes some sense as infrastructure is a brutal market dominated by two players.
  • At one end of the market there is Ericsson which is the technology leader and at the other there is Huawei which is the cost leader.
  • Between them they have created a balance in the market but for anyone caught in the middle, the outlook has always been pretty bleak.
  • That being said, Rajeev Suri has done an excellent job at turning Nokia Networks around and the timing of buying Siemens’ out of its share was perfect.
  • Now it is running smoothly, it is time to turn his mind to the long term and with Ericsson and Huawei both meaningfully bigger than Nokia Networks, the outlook is pretty tough.
  • More than handsets, infrastructure is a game of scale where one needs to maximise the revenues over which to spread the fixed costs of Research and Development and Sales and Marketing.
  • If one lacks scale, then the bigger competitors can still make a decent return while squeezing smaller companies out of the market.
  • This is exactly what is happening in Android and what has been going on for years in semiconductor memory.
  • As a smaller player, Nokia Networks clearly needs more scale and buying the wireless assets of Alcatel-Lucent will help it do that.
  • However, this is a road fraught with risk, as execution of these sorts of mergers in the past has proved very difficult and in every case it has failed to fix the problem.
  • Given Rajeev Suri’s execution of the turn-around of Nokia Networks, He has a good chance of making this work but history is dead against him.
  • The bigger problem for me is that it looks like Nokia is thinking of selling HERE in order to pay for it.
  • HERE is one of only two really credible solutions for a high quality map and following the divestment of the handset business, HERE is the only independent choice.
  • I am pretty sure that Microsoft wanted to acquire HERE as part of the handset deal but was rebuffed in its advances.
  • This is because there is an opportunity for Nokia to really grow market share as Google Maps deals expire and then sell it on for a much higher price.
  • Many of the deals with Google were struck some time ago and many customers now view Google as a competitor and I think would welcome an independent supplier of mapping data.
  • I think that much of this opportunity still lies in front of HERE and as a result selling HERE now for E2bn is doing shareholder a disservice.
  • Consequently, I think that Nokia would be better off holding onto HERE and raising the money via debt.
  • The fact that there are a number of private equity shops all considering bidding for HERE is a good sign of how much value Nokia will be leaving on the table if it sells now.
  • Shareholders will be worse off if it does.

 

 

Twitter – Take no prisoners.

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Another ruthless demonstration of the value of data.

  • The closing of Twitter’s data feed to third parties is a great example of how valuable user data is becoming and how dangerous it is to have large dependencies in a business model.
  • Twitter announced on Friday (April 10th 2015) that it will remove access for third parties to its firehose data feed.
  • This feed is all of the raw data that is generated by the Twitter service that is then analysed by third parties and the results sold onto their clients.
  • In April 2014, Twitter acquired Gnip which is a big data analysis company that sells the results of that analysis onto third parties.
  • At the time of the acquisition, Twitter promised that nothing would change with Gnip continuing to operate independently and being treated the same as the other companies using the Twitter feed.
  • However, the writing has always been on the wall, and now that Twitter is ready to funnel its data to Gnip exclusively, it has moved to cut the other third parties off.
  • This runs the risk that Gnip will now be denied access to the firehose data of other companies, but this is a risk that Twitter had to take.
  • The raw data itself it is not of much value until it has been refined and analysed into something meaningful that advertisers are willing to pay for.
  • Now that Twitter can do this itself, there is little point in giving away revenues and margins to third parties.
  • This is especially the case as Twitter is in danger of running out of growth and needs other avenues from which to derive revenues.
  • I suspect that all of the other major ecosystems who collect vast quantities of data will all end up doing the same.
  • This strongly reinforces RFM research which has long believed that collecting one’s own data from one’s own Digital Life services is a key element to being a successful ecosystem.
  • It also further reinforces the view that dependencies are always dangerous.
  • No matter what assurances one is given, things can quickly change meaning that the dependent can have its business severely damaged in a heartbeat.
  • This is exactly what happens to websites that are dependent for their traffic from Google.
  • When Google changes its algorithms, it invariably has unforeseen effects and can cause an 80-90% collapse in the traffic arriving at a website without warning.
  • At the end of the day Twitter’s first loyalty must be to its shareholders and that means that if it has to cut third parties out for the good of its business then that is what it must do.
  • I expect to see more of these types of moves as the ecosystems become more mature with the easy growth over, forcing everyone dig deeper in the barrel to find the next leg of growth.
  • Microsoft and Google remain my top two choices to look at to gain exposure to the ecosystem.

PCs – Innovation Free Zone

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Lack of innovation is another big problem for PC makers.

  • The Surface pro 3 and now the Surface 3 show that Microsoft is the only PC maker capable of any innovation.
  • Microsoft has launched a little brother to the Surface Pro 3 which differs from its big brother in three ways.
    • First. It has a smaller screen at 10 inches rather than the Pro at 12.
    • Second. It uses an Intel Atom x7 processor rather than the more powerful i3, i5 or i7 that are in the Pro.
    • Third. It is much cheaper starting at $499 going up to $599 for the 128GB, 4GB RAM version.
  • The device runs the same version of Windows as its big brother and consequently it is capable of operating as a full laptop, tablet or desktop PC depending on what accessories are used with it.
  • The device also includes a 1 year subscription of Office 365 Personal (usual price $69.99) which I suspect is yet another way of drawing users into the Microsoft Ecosystem.
  • The device promises 80% of the performance of the i3 version of the Pro 3 but at a significantly lower price.
  • By bringing this form factor meaningfully down in price, Microsoft will have removed one of the main barriers to entry but two others remain.
  • First is Microsoft’s apparent inability to market this product as a totally different way of using portable computing.
  • Instead it is sticking rigidly in its rut of trying to entice users by marketing the device as a laptop.
  • In my opinion using the Surface 3 and Pro 3 as laptops provides the worst user experience and makes nothing of the incredible innovation that has been done to cram so much power in such a small space.
  • These devices are portable desktops where the user can use device with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse with the comfort and ergonomics of a desktop despite being out of the office.
  • It is this that makes the laptop form factor obsolete as using the device in other ways makes the user both more productive, more comfortable and healthier.
  • Unfortunately, a revolution in the user experience requires heavy investment as I think that Microsoft has invested around $100m in developing this product category.
  • Second. The PC makers have long ago been commoditised and have been forced to stop any meaningful product development as their wafer thin margins simply cannot support it.
  • Consequently they are all now dependent on the ODMs for product innovation none of whom are very good at it or seem to care that much.
  • This is why, I suspect that the electronics stores are full of ugly and clunky devices that are nothing more than laptops with detachable screens.
  • This is likely to be a significant hindrance to a laptop replacement cycle that has the potential to return the PC market to growth, albeit for a short period.
  • If users can be educated as to why the Surface use case is compelling rather than being sold yet another take on a laptop, then there is hope.
  • Until then, I suspect the PC market will lumber from one quarter to another, squandering the single biggest catalyst that could drive the shares of both Intel and Microsoft.

 

Apple – The wrong wrist

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Watch expectations are already beginning to fall.

  • The hype surrounding the Apple Watch is beginning to suffer from a healthy dose of reality causing the loftiest estimates to start falling.
  • The range of sales estimates in the first 12 months is huge with the most bearish on less than 10m units and the most bullish on 100m.
  • Consensus is somewhere around 40m which is double RFM’s generous estimate of 20m.
  • The problem is that the reviews of the device are beginning to come in and a clear trend is emerging.
  • The Apple Watch is a nice piece of kit but it is not a must have is the opinion of most reviews and this theme is being echoed by the surveys being done to ascertain consumer purchase expectations.
  • Importantly, the battery life is much better than I expected and can comfortably do a day’s use without having to be recharged.
  • This assumes that fitness tracking is not used because when it is switched on, it substantially increases the power drain on the battery.
  • This battery life is in line with the Microsoft Band which is not as elegant but has the same functions and costs half as much.
  • A BMO survey has found that less than 1 in 10 people who own an iPhone 6 or iPhone 5s intend to buy an Apple Watch.
  • Furthermore, one of the biggest draws for the device is fitness tracking for which there are many other, just as good, but cheaper options.
  • I think the biggest problem is that Apple has targeted the wrong wrist.
  • By designing it as it has and naming it the Apple Watch, Apple has ensured that it must be used as a replacement for the wrist watch.
  • Users will feel very foolish with an Apple Watch on one wrist and a regular timepiece on the other.
  • Other offerings like Fitbit, Microsoft, Misfit and so on are targeting the empty wrist and their products are designed and sold accordingly.
  • As result users don’t feel foolish wearing one of these products as well as a wrist watch whereas Apple has to convince users to consign their beloved timepiece to a drawer.
  • Apple has failed to come up with a killer use case for a wrist mounted computer and as simply come up with a series of gimmicks where the novelty is likely to quickly wear off.
  • Apple will outsell its wearable rivals by a very wide margin but it will do this on the power of its brand and its design alone.
  • This is not enough to sell in anything like the volume that the biggest bulls are predicting and I see further cuts to estimates coming.
  • Consequently, I am sticking to my 20m forecast for the first 12 months and see the potential for some sogginess in the stock as reality sets in.
  • Microsoft and Google remain my preferred ways to gain exposure to the mobile and digital ecosystem space.

Patent licensing – House of cards.

Reply to this post

RFM AvatarSmall

 

 

 

 

 

Standard Essential Patents not at risk of value collapse.

  • The ongoing fight between Google (Motorola) and Microsoft is at risk of setting a legal precedent that could collapse the value of standard essential patents (SEPs).
  • This particular fight was started by Motorola which sued Microsoft for infringement of its MPEG4 (h.264) and WiFi SEPs in PCs.
  • Microsoft counter-sued with a federal suit alleging that Motorola had failed to live up to its FRAND (see below) obligations when it came to licensing its SEPs.
  • Because SEPs are always included within a standard, anyone who makes a product that uses that technology invariably infringes that IPR.
  • To prevent patent holders exploiting the situation, IP that is included in a standard must be licenced on Fair, Reasonable And Non –Discriminatory terms (FRAND).
  • Motorola was seeking a $22.50 from every mid-range laptop that makes use of its patents which with an ASP of $700, is a royalty rate of 3.2%.
  • Microsoft pays a group of 29 companies just $0.02 per laptop to use their pool of 2,300 patents and so it is not difficult to see how Microsoft could make a case for a breach of FRAND.
  • For the first time, the court attempted to determine an appropriate royalty, concluding that Microsoft should pay Motorola $1.8m per year rather than the $4bn Motorola had asked for.
  • Motorola appealed this ruling and it is this appeal that goes before a court in San Francisco today.
  • If the ruling is upheld it will set a very dangerous precedent for all future SEP negotiations as patents are almost impossible to value with royalty payments being almost entirely based on history and precedent.
  • I suspect that the court’s method is deeply flawed in at least one way which is that it is very likely that the court has assumed that all SEPs within a standard are equal in terms of their importance.
  • However, the reality is very different.
  • Patents may look the same but the value of one patent can be hundreds of millions of dollars while an entire pool of similar patents can be virtually worthless.
  • This fact is obvious when look at the patent pools or any association that licences groups of patents for a single fee which is then shares out.
  • These are almost always made up of the weakest patents because the nature of any program dis-incentivises a holder of a strong patent from joining the pool.
  • Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia and Motorola have never contributed their wireless SEP patents to a pool because they know their patents are strong and that they can earn higher returns on their own.
  • Historically, the patent holders also manufactured the products meaning that everyone existed under cross licence (much lower royalty) creating a reasonably balanced status quo.
  • However, with the rise of Apple, Samsung and the Chinese this is no longer the case and this is why there is huge pressure from manufacturers to reduce the cost of SEP licensing.
  • Consequently, I think that SEP pricing will continue to fall over time but is unlikely to suffer a big collapse from this court case.
  • This is because I think that the court’s method is fundamentally flawed and suspect that it will not be upheld on appeal meaning that the house of cards that is SEP pricing will stand to fight another day.