Tero - would it be more or less correct to characterize the WCDMA situation thusly:
- NOK (and I suppose ERICY) have made substantial contributions to the art beyond the basic "wheel and axle" QCOM spread spectrum IPR;
- NOK would expect/hope for an ultimate resolution along the lines of a cross-license that would in some fashion recognize the proportionate contributions of each company's IPR;
- QCOM's position is that if any portion of their IPR is used, regardless of the IPR contributed by others, full boat royalties must be paid to San Diego;
- Following the above, if an infra/handset mfgr. wants to implement W-CDMA, QCOM says feel free to license IPR from NOK or whoever, provided QCOM gets the full pound of flesh;
- The longer QCOM can drag this issue out from a resolution, the better for them - just buy CDMA2000 and pay one royalty only; or
- Would it really be in both QCOM's and NOK's best interest to have a proportionate x-license scheme on the theory (from QCOM's standpoint) that half of many loaves from widespread migration to W-CDMA is better than all of a few narrowband loaves?
The various standards bodies have historically been not too receptive to one company playing "dog in the manger." How do you see this ultimately being resolved - by standards bodies exerting (what?) leverage over QCOM, or by the boys and girls learning to play nice all by themselves?
(I'm beginning to guess the latter, and that there are more than a few toys in NOK's chest that QCOM would like to play with, and the most recent rounds of "mutually assured FUD" are really just posturings for each camp to work out the best slices of what will ultimately be divided pies - and that dividing the pies is really in each party's best interest.)
Disclosure - mostly a QCOM'er, but with a few NOK and ERICY shares in a wireless telecom fund. |
