Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 147.19

-3.6%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: voop who wrote (606)	7/11/2000 4:17:22 AM
From: cfoe	of 197502

My nagging doubt is whether there is cross-licensing of other vendor's IP that dilutes the net royalty for WCDMA. It may be my poor memory (or ignorance) speaking here, but what the heck. Didn't ERICY sign a 3G license last march when they capitulated on their lawsuit against QCOM? Didn't that 3G license mean that ERICY recognized QCOM's essential patents with respect to 3G? Didn't QCOM's management say that the offsetting ERICY IPR was negligible so that the net royalty was close to the full royalty? Wasn't ERICY one of the two original champions of W-CDMA along with NOK? How come the ERICY deal (capitulation) is never, ever referred to by the QCOM-bashers in the analyst and press community? What am I missing here?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next