C2,Talksfree,Jeff, Re: QCOM / GSM IPR v NOK, and “Is all this clear as mud?”
Yes, clear as mud except the Bottom line which is perfectly clear>>> “: Nokia basically has admitted it infringed , IMO. It's basically now an issue of whether Q did the right thing by not disclosing, and it looks like it did, at least according to Ron's research on the ETSI rules. The rest will just be details and the impact of Q's failure to disclose.”
And, as such NOK has continued its irrational behavior wrt Qualcomm / CDMA, a “suicide” pact so to say. Should this latest action be so difficult to understand given its prior misgivings? -
1. CDMA will never work
2. When that was proven wrong- We invented CDMA
3. Then- we’ll soon have 25% market share in CDMA w/o using Qualcomm ICs because they’re to expensive, yet we went out of business because we couldn’t compete with our own supposed lower cost solution.
4. Then- we’re scraping CDMA R&D / manufacture because it’s going nowhere / doesn’t fit our business model (i.e.- sweet heart / volume deals / choking the competition)
5. Then- we’re actually going to sell NOK branded CDMA handsets in selected markets using ODMs (which use Q’s chipsets even they’re too expensive)
6. Our Q license includes use of GSM IPR
7. Then- maybe it does / maybe it doesn’t include GSM IPR, but whatever, the license we thought we had but now we probably don’t because they offered us a new one but on unFRANDly terms.
8. And, then there’s the memo to Bill Gates from Oilla stating EV-DO was a fraud.
Re: Talksfree and “A court is not going to take a PR statement that is ambiguous as an admission in a suit that is worth millions or billions .
Shoot, Jeffrey, you stole my thunder with your timely post (Must admit you stated it much better). I was going to counter that probably next to official court / regulatory filings, the companies PR statements are likely the most official documents issued by a company as they are intended to express the companies official public position and should therefore be well researched and edited before release. And, as such, PRs should have more bearing than perhaps verbal “off-the-cuff” statements by the CEO.
Jeffrey, Thanks also for>>>>> “Nokia has asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to define and enforce Qualcomm`s obligation to license its essential GSM and UMTS IPR in conformity with FRAND principles. A condition precedent to that obligation is the existence of such IPR. As the Delaware litigation is not a patent suit, the existence of IPR subject to FRAND terms must have been implicitly conceded.” Sounds like you hit the nail dead center on that one also. |
