available and knock the stuffing out of the original investor. And the author's royalties at the same time. MR WHITE: To expand on that, the issue is that again there is no modelling about what will happen to the market for author rights. We are interfering with a successful industry where we export content. If we remove territorial copyright what is the natural consequence that will happen on the ability of publishers and authors to sell their rights at Frankfurt, London or the New York Book fair? Will they achieve the same market price? I wonder. Will they want to, because they are concerned that they may not be able to sustain the book in the very market they are in. There is also, it seems to me, an oxymoron in the way that the recommendations are put forward. If the author or the originator of content - if you create a book in Australia under your recommendations, if they're adopted, will have this unique consequence that they will be able to sell, arguably, a more enforceable right to a third party over their own work than they will have themselves in their own market. That is, if they sell and English language edition to the UK, the UK can assert territorial copyright against the world at large for that edition in that market. They can then dump it back into our market. Our Australian author has no such protection. They effectively are somehow managing to sell a bigger, larger property right than they themselves actually own at the time that the book is created, if these recommendations apply through. MR COPPEL: I think we have run out of time. We could certainly continue, because it has raised many issues - - - MR WHITE: Well, can I say, we would welcome any opportunity to sit at the table with your and discuss this, because we think this is a crucial issue for our industry. We recognise that these are complex issues and that you have a very large and very complex report to deal with where this is only a small part of it, but we would welcome any opportunity to sit down and if there are going to be further considerations, Joel and I pretty much - and I am sure Mark would be available too. MR BECKER: We would be very happy to be part of an industry roundtable. MR COPPEL: Okay. Thank you very much, Joel, Tim and Mark, and also thank you for your submission on the post-draft report. MR WHITE: Thank you.
almost 20 years of experience in international best practice around telecommunications regulation. I guess, it’s indicative of the importance that we hold with respect to your draft report and the consultation process and the hearing, in that I’ve travelled from Hong Kong to be here. My colleague, Phil, he’s travelled from New York to be here. We came precisely for this hearing. MS CHESTER: Okay, the debating bell’s gone under the table. You can take a bit longer. MR ORANGE: Thanks very much. I guess, just one more note before I turn over to Phil for our introductory remarks, is that Qualcomm is a technology development company. It’s core technologies are central to the ideas of - or to the delivery of 3G, 4G and 5G communications. It’s fair to say that without strong intellectual property rights regimes that those core technologies could never be commercialised and those technology ecosystems could never be developed. So with that I’ll turn over to you, Phil. MR WADSWORTH: Yes, yes. Thank you very much for inviting us today. If I may start with a prepared statement, hopefully, give you some more insight to our perspective and where we’re coming from. Our fundamental business objective is to be the leading technology enabler for wireless communication devices around the world. To achieve this objective, our business model has two primary components, namely the development of leading edge chip sets and supporting software that provide the core functionality or brains of the mobile telecommunications devices on the market today. As noted in our submission, we are the largest (indistinct) semi-conductor developer in the world. The other key component of our business model is that we openly licence our patent portfolio to any entity that wishes to manufacture mobile devices for anywhere in the world. We refer to our business model as a virtuous innovation cycle which includes risky and expensive R & D to continue to stay on the leading edge of technology development, the integration of the inventive and innovation fruits of our R & D efforts into our chip sets and software the sale of which generates revenue for further R & D, and protecting inventions resulting from those same R & D efforts by obtaining patents in countries around the world, and licensing those patents to generate royalty revenue. We use a significant amount of those sources of revenue, approximately 5 billion every year or about 20 per cent of our total revenue, to invest in ongoing R & D to maintain our competitive edge in the market place.