Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 154.53

-0.8%

Jan 26 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: slacker711 who wrote (144533)	8/26/2006 7:10:44 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 152472

I remember seeing the policy immediately before the revision in a comparison of the two. Didn't note as it appeared to be essentially similar to the revision. In other words, loose language intentionally designed to allow for judgment in the specific case. The non-assert seems to be key as Q is not going after anyone but Nokia. Thus, timeliness of the declarations is irrelevant as to everyone except Nokia. Since Q was bound by the non-assert, any declarations would be irrelevant as to Nokia. Can you imagine Q trying to assert now against anyone other than Nokia, after saying it wouldn't? I cannot imaagine that ETSI or any court would cry foul at private arrangements such as the one between Q and NOK, particularly as there is next to no doubt that Q notified Nokia some time before the non-assert expired. Nokia undoubtedly had actual notice, declarations and their timelines be damned.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next