o.k. I took your advice and read the whole damn thing. I will stipulate that Qcom makes a strong argument. But for it to be conclusive in my mind, and to be FRAND, I need to read Nokia's complaint, and you should too(!). However, and notwithstanding, Qcom's complaint raises several questions detrimental to qcom relating to two facts:
1) Why on planet eMars, did Qcom agree to give Nok a (unilateral)right to exercise an extension to the SULA beyond the expiration date of the agreement? Why?! I've never heard of such a thing; without adequate consideration, that is. And therein lay the problem. Disputes on agreements are construed against the author (and I assume as the Licensor, qcom is the author). In light of that, nok's position should have been that qcom was providing a concession (consideration) to nok to use qcom's IP' royalty free, between April '07 & Dec. '08. The quid pro quo for qcom was to solidify a commitment from nok to extend the agreement beyond December 2008 thru 2013/2022 at qcom's "usury" rates. The intent as Nok would see it: this was qcom's way of rewarding Nok as a good customer for the past 15 years (1992-2007) and sugar coating the hard pill of a high rate that Nok would have to digest quarterly (a real belief from Nok's perspective) for the next 5-13 years(2009-2022); costing the latter, and providing the former, with billions and billions of USDs. A smart move by qcom in the macro sense. Lacking words by Qcom in the agreement to the contrary, that would have been my position if I were Nok. And I would have stuck to it. Seems fair to me. Especially if I was on the jury.
2)Qcom gave nok a rate that was better than "most" everyone else. Why wouldn't Nok have had a most favored nation type clause in the agreement? Shame on them if they didn't. Even if they didn't; if I were Nok, I would take the position that FRAND dictates that qcom's Number one payer of royalties should automatically be charged no more than the percentage payed any other royalty paying customer.
You may not agree with me, and i might not be any big time, high folutin', sophisticated, $1000 plus, an hour, attorney. But on the other hand, I'm no, Mr. Nodownside, either.
ihavenoidea. |
