Slacker / pyslent, re: Q’s GSM IPR v NOK
Thanks for your thoughts>>>
1. (Slacker) “Nokia will never acknowledge Q's IPR in GSM. It would be absolute suicide for them to do so.”
2. (pyslent) “It is possible to interpret the above PR excerpt as saying that Qualcomm has a general FRAND agreement that covers any and all essential patents applicable to either GSM or UMTS. That would not be a concession that such essential patents exist. IMO, without an "its" in front of "intellectual property," there's room for interpretation either way.
NOK’s PR.
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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Absolute suicide or not, IMO (and several others) NOK’s actions / statements (#1 & #2 below), and the PR above clearly “acknowledge Q's **(essential**) IPR in GSM”.
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”
Intrepretation of the above>>>
+ QCOM has essential GSM IPR, however we “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." ”
Intrepretation of the above>>>
+ We received an offer from the Q to license their essential GSM IPR, but “no offer from Qualcomm that was on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.".
+ IOWs, the terms of Q’s offer to license essential GSM IPR was unacceptable (royalty rate too high, not a free cross-license, included 3rd party pass-thru rights, etc, etc)
Re: (pyslent)- “ IMO, without an "its" in front of "intellectual property," there's room for interpretation either way.
LOL, who in the world do you believe that PR was referring to other than Qualcomm, the man in the moon???
I suppose NOK mentioned **Qualcomm** / **essential**l / **GSM** just for the heck of it, just to give us something to debate.
Further, I suppose they shrewdly wrote that PR so that it could be left to “ interpretation either way “ by the courts to present a “fair and balanced” reading. No reason to be overly aggressive against the Q, and emphatically state in the PR that >>
“this by no means implies that we have infringed on Qualcomm’s GSM IPR (essential or not) intentionally or otherwise, or implies that we believe that Qualcomm may or may not have essential / non-essential GSM IPR that Qualcomm now claims”.
Yup, better left to interpretation either way “ by the courts to present a “fair and balanced” reading.
.....”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” ....
One has to wonder who’s minding the store, and if their attorneys (“close friends”) / PR writers / checkers even understand English ?
Yup, I guess as long as one can use “that depends of the meaning of it” , just about anything goes. |
