Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 151.59

-0.4%

Jan 30 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: engineer who wrote (36121)	7/20/1999 1:55:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (4) of 152472

Asking for a declaratory judgment is brilliant. The only problem is that Q wants to keep part of the agreement. Generally, one has to take a contract as a whole; you can't void part without voiding the whole. One question is whether the provisions are severable and whether the licenses were mutual--license from MOT to Q was a predicate for the license from Q to MOT. I would want to know if there are allegations that MOT is not paying royalties in the amount that it should to Q. If MOT is not paying royalties in the correct amount, then there is an even greater possibility that the licenses granted to MOT could be terminated. If Q can get away without using MOT patents, then the possibility of termination of the licenses to MOT is much greater. Certainly raises the stakes and puts MOT on the defensive. If Q can get back its license, it puts MOT out of the cdma business; it won't be able to manufacture chips for its own use or for sale to others. That would really put Q in the driver's seat in the chip business.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next