SI
SI
discoversearch

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 173.43-0.8%Dec 29 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (97476)4/15/2001 10:22:55 AM
From: saukriver  Read Replies (2) of 152472
 
Seems to me it depends more on license agreements than patent expriations.

Nope. If the royalties due under a license "step down" on patent expiration, the fact that you have a license does not really matter. 'cause your royalty rate is dropping way down.

Seems like no one worries about GSM's IPR share of 29% expiring anytime soon.

Can't fathom what you are talking about. IPR share of what? 29% of what?

But leaving that aside, it is the quality of the patents--not the quantity--that is the driver. I could care less how long Nokia's patent for fuschia faceplates runs. ;0)

On your overall point of there being a double standard in assessing GSM v. Qualcomm, you are of course correct. However, I firmly believe that one of Qualcomm's major problems is in developing a short, intelligible explanation of its lock. When, Malcolm asks a legit question on patent expiration, I think it should be addressed and not buried in jargon and FLAs. I care more about someone who can intelligently address the stock without a mind-numbing blizzard of FLAs and standards jargon. If that cannot be done, then Qualcomm's stock will languish until it can be explained easily to the non-technically inclined.

saukriver
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext