SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 172.98+1.1%Jan 2 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JGoren who wrote (62045)4/5/2007 12:54:45 PM
From: slacker711   of 197073
 
Richard Windsor, an analyst at Japanese investment bank Nomura, said Nokia has pulled of a "strategic master stroke" by doing this.

Windsor said the deal signals how much Nokia is willing to pay Qualcomm for royalties and by doing so, Nokia significantly reduces the risk of being found guilty of "willful infringement" in any patent lawsuits that follow with the San Diego-based chipset maker.


Let's look at Nokia's two positions with respect to the rights/obligations granted by participation in a SDO.

1) Injunctions (even after a finding of infringement) arent appropriate since the company is obligated to license to all comers.

2) A company can avoid a finding of wilful infringement by making a unilateral decision on the appropriate level of royalties.

If a court ever supported those two positions, there would be no reason for a company to EVER license a patent portfolio that has been submitted to a SDO. They will always go to court since they wouldnt be subject to any particular punishment beyond the established royalty payments. Who knows, maybe Nokia will win one of their arguments....but any judge that finds for both will have effectively insured that the courts would be used for every licensing deal involving a SDO. Hard to imagine that happening....

Slacker
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext