encompass regulatory & licensing consultants inc.

3050 upper court
hamburg, new york 14075

NYS Entity Status
ACTIVE

NYS Filing Date
SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

NYS DOS ID#
4463455

County
ERIE

Jurisdiction
NEW YORK

Registered Agent
NONE

NYS Entity Type
DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION

Name History
2013 - ENCOMPASS REGULATORY & LICENSING CONSULTANTS INC.









Buffer



submit to reddit

Telephone
n/a

Fax
n/a

Website
n/a

Email address
n/a

LinkedIn
n/a

Facebook
n/a

Google+
n/a

Twitter
n/a

Pinterest
n/a

Instagram
n/a



  • AROUND THE WEB

  • Nike, Universal Studios, Sanrio Feel Regulatory Heat in Europe
    Wednesday Jun 14, 2017

    The EU’s antitrust regulator opened three separate formal investigations into licensing and distribution practices by Nike, Japan’s Sanrio, and Universal Studios in Europe, the latest salvo by the watchdog in its bid to tear down barriers for consumers shopping online in the bloc.

    Source: The Wall Street Journal: U.S. Business
  • Google Finds Unique Method To Gather Map Data
    Thursday Jun 22, 2017

    Jennifer Slegg, The SEM Post founder, reports that this Google test is a way to get information for Maps in organic search results after being tipped off by Frank Sandtmann, a sales consultant inHamburg.

    Source: Media Post: Search Marketing Daily
  • Food & Wine Magazine Will Leave New York for Alabama
    By STEPHANIE STROM - Friday Jun 23, 2017

    The move reflects a changing business in which traditional food magazines, and a Manhattan address, are less important.

    Source: NYT > Home Page
  • Rhode Island bill sees highway surveillance cams ticketing uninsured motorists
    By David Kravets - Thursday Jun 22, 2017

    The $120 fines would be split evenly between contractor and the state.

    Source: Ars Technica
  • The future of drone delivery depends on predicting the weather
    By Bloomberg - Thursday Jun 22, 2017

    Imagine a weather report so precise it provides wind-gust forecasts for individual city blocks. Such micro-weather data may soon become a reality—and a necessity for future fleets of delivery drones.

    As Amazon.com Inc., United Parcel Service Inc., Domino’s Pizza Inc., and others gear up to launch autonomous drone deliveries of books, pills, and pizza, companies are realizing it’s the quality of hyperlocal weather data more than anything else that will steer their packages around storm clouds and through wind-buffeted urban canyons.

    “The weather issue is a very significant one,” said Sean Cassidy, director of safety and regulatory affairs for Amazon’s drone unit. “We don’t have anything at the level of granularity that you would need to operate.” Read more...

    More about Weather, Drones, Meteorology, Drone Delivery, and Business

    Source: Mashable!
  • Apple Says Qualcomm Has Overcharged Billions of Dollars By 'Double-Dipping' on iPhone's Innovation
    By Joe Rossignol - Tuesday Jun 20, 2017

    Apple has expanded its lawsuit against Qualcomm, accusing the wireless chipmaker of "double-dipping" by way of unfair patent licensing agreements, according to an amended complaint filed with a United States federal court in San Diego today.


    The complaint broadens the claims Apple made in its original lawsuit against Qualcomm in January, when it sued the chipmaker for $1 billion in alleged unpaid royalty rebates. Apple also accused its longtime supplier of the iPhone's wireless chip of engaging in anticompetitive licensing practices.

    Since the original iPhone, Qualcomm has supplied Apple with modems that enable the smartphone to, for example, connect to a Wi-Fi or LTE network. But as the iPhone has gained more features, Apple argues that Qualcomm has been unfairly "levying its own tax" on those innovations through "exorbitant royalties."

    Apple said Qualcomm wrongly bases its royalties on a percentage of the entire iPhone's value, despite supplying just a single component of the device.

    As Apple innovates, Qualcomm demands more. Qualcomm had nothing to do with creating the revolutionary Touch ID, the world’s most popular camera, or the Retina display Apple’s customers love, yet Qualcomm wants to be paid as if these (and future) breakthroughs belong to it. Qualcomm insists in this Court that it should be entitled to rely on the same business model it applied over a decade ago to the flip phone but while that model may have been defensible when a phone was just a phone, today it amounts to a scheme of extortion that allows Qualcomm unfairly to maintain and entrench its existing monopoly.
    The licensing agreements are in addition to paying for the wireless chips themselves. Apple said Qualcomm's "double-dipping, extra-reward system" is precisely the kind that the U.S. Supreme Court recently forbade in a lawsuit between Lexmark and a small company reselling its printer cartridges.
    If that were not enough, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., condemned Qualcomm’s business model as a violation of U.S. patent law. The Supreme Court flatly rejected Qualcomm’s business model, holding that a patent holder may demand only “one reward” for its patented products, and when it has secured the reward for its invention, it may not, under the patent laws, further restrict the use or enjoyment of the item. Qualcomm, by its own admission, will not sell chips to manufacturers who do not also pay separate royalties and enter Qualcomm licenses at usurious rates. This is precisely the kind of double-dipping, extra-reward system that the Court’s decision in Lexmark forbids.
    Apple said it has been "overcharged billions of dollars" due to Qualcomm's so-called "illegal scheme," including the $1 billion in unpaid royalty rebates that led Apple to sue Qualcomm in January.

    In its countersuit, Qualcomm accused Apple of failing to engage in good faith negotiations for a license to its 3G and 4G standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

    Apple, however, argues that Qualcomm's monopolistic licensing demands violate its FRAND obligations.
    By tying together the markets for chipsets and licenses to technology in cellular standards, Qualcomm illegally enhances and strengthens its monopoly in each market and eliminates competition. Then, Qualcomm leverages its market power to extract exorbitant royalties, later agreeing to reduce those somewhat only in exchange for additional anticompetitive advantages and restrictions on challenging Qualcomm’s power, further solidifying its stranglehold on the industry.
    Apple also claims that Qualcomm has never made it a worldwide offer on FRAND terms for a direct license to its patented technologies.

    Apple said Qualcomm subsequently filing lawsuits against iPhone manufacturers Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal reveals "its true bullying nature," calling it "a blatant attempt to exert pressure on Apple to acquiesce to" its "non-FRAND royalty demands" by attacking its smaller contract manufacturers.
    Qualcomm knows that these are companies who have been effectively coerced by its monopoly practices in the past. Qualcomm knows that these companies merely pass through the usuriously high royalty demanded by Qualcomm and so have little incentive to resist its monopolistic tactics.
    Apple has called for the court to declare Qualcomm's patents in the lawsuit unessential to 3G/4G standards used in the iPhone and its other products, and to prevent Qualcomm from taking any adverse or legal action against Apple's contract manufacturers related to the allegations in today's amended complaint.


    Discuss this article in our forums

    Source: MacRumors : Mac News and Rumors
  • Only Congress Can Undo Its Regulatory Mess
    Sunday Jun 18, 2017

    Lawmakers seek credit for benefits while evading blame for burdens. Change will require them to act.

    Source: The Wall Street Journal: Opinion
  • Four Credit Repair Agencies Accused Of Misleading Customers, Charging Illegal Fees
    By Ashlee Kieler - Tuesday Jun 27, 2017

    Four different “credit repair” operations have been ordered to pay a total of more than $2 million in penalties for allegedly tricking people into thinking their bad credit could be easily fixed.The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today that it filed complaints and proposed judgments against Prime Credit, LLC, IMC Capital, LLC, Commercial Credit Consultants, and Park View Law, …

    Source: The Consumerist