BDAZZ, Re: GSM IPR- QCOM v NOK..........great question >>>
“If their position is that QCOM has no essential GSM IPR then why are they filing to make QCOM license its essential GSM IPR.
But there is an obvious contradiction in the ITC filing and their own press release concerning the Delaware action. Their ITC filing denies any valid QCOM GSM patents. But a few weeks later it is a different story. If their position is that QCOM has no essential GSM IPR then why are they filing to make QCOM license its essential GSM IPR.
The following is from the Nokia press release:
>>Nokia (NYSE: NOK ) announced today that it has filed a complaint against Qualcomm with the Delaware Court of Chancery in the U.S. Nokia is asking the Court to order Qualcomm to abide by its written contractual obligations to international standards setting organizations to license intellectual property essential to GSM and UMTS technology standards on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.<<
<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<
I’m getting a little confused here by NOK’s statements ( PR & court) and the interpretation of such by knowledgeable folks commenting on this board that .
1. NOK’s folks were initially (after ITC filing) quoted as “believing” their license with QCOM included GSM IPR.....”. Nokia had said it believed the patents in question were covered by a prior license agreement”
2. A little later NOK claimed QCOM wasn’t being FRANDly ....”Plummer said. "We have received no offer from Qualcomm that was on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms." ”
3. NOK then issued a PR on Aug 9 “...Nokia is asking the Court to order Qualcomm ... to license intellectual property essential to GSM and UMTS technology standards...”>>
>>>>>>>>>>
NOKIA PRESS RELEASE August 9, 2006
Nokia asks Delaware court to enforce Qualcomm's contractual obligations in essential patent licensing
>>Nokia (NYSE: NOK ) announced today that it has filed a complaint against Qualcomm with the Delaware Court of Chancery in the U.S. Nokia is asking the Court to order Qualcomm to abide by its written contractual obligations to international standards setting organizations to license intellectual property essential to GSM and UMTS technology standards on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.<<
4. NOK Court Filing Aug 10 w/ 110 denials ----- per Slacker “Here is a copy of Nokia's response to Q's ITC claims. Hopefully, this can put to rest the speculation that they are accepting Q's IPR claims....they use the word denies 110 times in the 23 page document.”
5. Getting back to Voop’s original statement>>>>
>>> “Nokia is now admitting that QUALCOMM does indeed have licensible IPR "essential to GSM..." >>
and comments by very knowledgeable folks on this board in denial that NOK has admitted that “ that QUALCOMM does indeed have licensible IPR "essential to GSM..” with>>>
5.1)... “ No. They are acknowledging that QUALCOMM is claiming that they have licensable GSM IP. They are not, however, in any way shape or fashion -- at least so far as we know, and it is highly unlikely they would do that, and nothing can be construed as such by reasonably intelligent human beings who are doing anything other than indulging wishful thinking -- admitting that the IP QUALCOMM has declared to be essential to the GSM standards is in fact essential.”
5.2) ... “what I am saying (and will continue to say), is that there is simply no way in hell that Nokia has admitted in court or in a press release that are in infringement of Q's GSM IPR. It would violate every rule of common sense to believe that they would ever make that addmission. “
6. Perhaps NOK is violating every rule of common sense, but it’s appears obvious to me in reading the following NOK Aug 9 PR (and NOK’s prior comments,etc) >>>
Nokia is asking the Court to order Qualcomm to abide by its written contractual obligations to international standards setting organizations to license intellectual property essential to GSM and UMTS technology standards on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms
A. As Jay aptly revealed, NOK does not presently have a Qualcomm license covering standalone GSM products that are “essential to GSM ...standards”
+ That statement did not read--- **if ** Qualcomm has IP essential to GSM, to license......
+ That statement did not read omit the word **essential**, nor **license**, nor **IPR**, nor **GSM**
+ If NOK had such a QCOM license (as NOK previously believed it did), obviously there would be no reason for the above PR and the Q’s infringement action, unless NOK is now under the believe that it has a QCOM GSM license that is not FRANDly.
B. Slacker may be technically correct in that NOK has not admitted to “infringing” on the Q’s GSM IPR, but from the NOK PR and other statements it should now be clearly obvious to the court (and reasonably intelligent human beings ) that >>
+ NOK does not presently have a Qualcomm license covering standalone GSM(GPRS/EDGE) products.
+ NOK has and presently does manufacture / sell GSM(GPRS/EDGE) products (by the millions).
+ NOK has publicly admitted via that PR that the Q has in fact **essential GSM IPR** while asking to court to **order** Qualcomm to license such to NOK (and all) on FRANDly terms
+ NOK and any company is in violation of the law ( “infringing”) if it knowingly uses another’s IPR w/o first obtaining a license, especially after being informed of such IPR violations (which apparently Qualcomm has via negotiations, filing w/ standard boards, various legal actions).
“Nokia is now admitting that QUALCOMM does indeed have licensible IPR "essential to GSM..... thereby making them potentially culpable to the claims of prior Qualcomm lawsuits”
What’s not to understand? |
