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 178.29

-1.6%

Dec 12 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JGoren who wrote (48265)	11/1/2005 2:57:46 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) of 196961

Good but difficult questions. I'll take them in the order you used provided you take a good dose of salt because this is not my field: (1)since the effect of adverse findings is the unenforceability of agreements in the EU, one might wonder if there is a treaty that prevents the United States courts from enforcing the agreements. None of which I'm aware, but I would be very surprised if a US court would rule that the agreements are enforceable in Europe after the EEC says they're not. It would be a jurisdictional issue, one in which I suspect that a US court would be hard pressed to justify a holding that it has power over what happens in Europe after the EEC had spoken. This of course does not mean that a US court could hold the agreements enforceable in the US and anywhere else the hand of US law may be said to reach. 2.- if there is no agreement, then how do NOK, Ericy, and TXN continue to produce and sell product? if they defeat the agreements, they immediately violate patent law. I don't think any EEC ruling will simply hold that the way Q does business prevents its patents from being enforced. The parties would be directed to negotiate and, if negotiation fails, a deal would be crafted for them. 3.- Does TXN then destroy its royalty free agreement? Does that put Qcom in any jeopardy as to continued use of any GSM patents licensed from TXN or can Qcom work around them? I doubt that this aspect of the case would be reformed. If Q loses, it might be directed to no longer offer royalty breaks to chip customers or to reduce such breaks, which I assume is what TXN wants. The royalty free cross licensing deal between TXN and Q doesn't seem to be an issue. 4.- Maybe if it takes a long time, the new upgrade standard will come into existence and the need for GSM patents from TXN will no longer be relevant? Assuming that Q got such GSM IPR from TXN, they would be very valuable until such time as the patents expire. Unfoftunately, GSM is going to be with us a very long time. But it is not part of the EEC case unless Q files some sort of counter claim against the Hagfish Guild, something it did not do even when it was being seriously screwed by them.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next