Global has made it clear that they don't always charge on a per port basis. Rather, they generally use the business model of each of their customers. In Skype's case, this would be a percentage of revenues, since Skype doesn't charge for downloads. So measuring Skype's deployments or downloads isn't really relevant to Gips royalties from Skype. Otherwise, Gips would be generating well over $120 million in royalties to date from Skype. This arrangement has really benefitted Skype. It has enabled them to gain the market share they currently enjoy. But they will pay Gips when revenues finally hit their books.
Global has made it clear that they don't always charge on a per port basis. Rather, they generally use the business model of each of their customers. In Skype's case, this would be a percentage of revenues, since Skype doesn't charge for downloads. So measuring Skype's deployments or downloads isn't really relevant to Gips royalties from Skype. Otherwise, Gips would be generating well over $120 million in royalties to date from Skype. This arrangement has really benefitted Skype. It has enabled them to gain the market share they currently enjoy. But they will pay Gips when revenues finally hit their books.
If true, then that would lead to an interestingly ironic situation: the only revenue GIPS would be realizing would be from services (In/Out/VM) that do not use anything unique to GIPS (using the G.729a codec); calls that make use of the unique GIPS technology (Skype-Skype calls) would generate no revenue for GIPS.
If true, then that would lead to an interestingly ironic situation: the only revenue GIPS would be realizing would be from services (In/Out/VM) that do not use anything unique to GIPS (using the G.729a codec); calls that make use of the unique GIPS technology (Skype-Skype calls) would generate no revenue for GIPS.
Commenting by HaloScan
