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 175.32

+0.3%

Dec 8 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: hedgefund who wrote (62841)	4/19/2007 6:38:45 PM
From: Dash of Reality	Read Replies (1) of 196863

I'm sure that this is too simplistic, however my understanding of patent law is that the right holder is given a monopoly for use of that patent for a period of time. The right holder has no obligation to license these rights, but may do so for whatever price the market will bare regardless of objections brought by those who wish to use the correlating IP (Don’t like the price then don’t use the IP). Counting the number of material or immaterial patents as it relates to patent law is pointless. Some of Qualcomm’s patents relating to the main components of CDMA issued in early 1990’s are soon coming to conclusion, perhaps this is what Nokia is referring to when they say fully paid. However this argument is irrelevant to the remaining patents. Willfully using these rights without compensating the patent holder would be tantamount to stealing. One of the remedies for this willful infringement would be an injunction to cease using the patented property. Should negotiations fail, this remedy is the one I feel that Qualcomm should aggressively pursue against Nokia. This will certainly provoke Nokia to reciprocate. Regardless of the end result the mere threat to each other’s business would force more serious negotiations and draw this debacle to a hastier conclusion, which from my stand point is more important than the actual negotiated conclusion. Other monetary remedies even considering treble damages would probably take twice as long to come to fruition and be absolved during negotiations anyway. Qualcomm’s stock will continue to struggle until this cloud is removed. I believe that most of the current lawsuits lodged against Qualcomm hinge upon this one. Qualcomm agreed as a member of the standards setting body that they would be willing to license their IP under FRAND(ly) terms, however, from my limited understanding, the definition of FRAND is ambiguous, there are no specific requirements only prior negotiated royalty rates as guidelines. This appears to me as the focus of the Nokia argument. This however is contract law, and not patent law. Remedies regarding this dispute will most likely take longer to come to fruition if they ever will. Who has more IP in the standard and who’s IP is more important to the standard is all based in contract law. They can sue each other all day everyday in every venue in the world and never have this dispute resolved. Time is on Nokia’s side. As long as they have the ace in the hole contract extension until the end of 2008, they will continue to pursue this resolution. As I said, I have a simple understanding of the law. Please feel free to correct any of my understandings and/or presumptions that are wrong or misguided. DoR

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next