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 174.01

-0.3%

Nov 14 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: w molloy who wrote (1645)	7/31/2000 1:57:07 AM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) of 196650

If the GSM IPR holders were to ask for all CDMA patents pre SpinCo - why would they change their stance simply because there are two companies rather than one? They may not change their stance. However, the legal reality will be that essential/necessary/useful IPR will be owned by two separate legal entities (QCOM and Spinco). If all a prospective licensee needs is a license from just QCOM, I assume QCOM will grant if on a fair and non-discriminatory basis. If they do not need Spinco IPR, no problem. What if the GSM IPR holders decide that SpinCo's "essential/necessary/useful CDMA IPR " are insufficient to buy entry into the patent pool? They may, and thereby deprive themselves of Spinco's IPR. If they do not want to be in the CDMA market, no problem. If they can work around Spinco's IPR, again no problem. If they want to be in the CDMA market and need Spinco's IPR as well, they got a problem! <IMHO>

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next