C2 Re: QCOM GSM v NOK (cutting to the chase) and---
Because IMO the parties have known all along about Q's IPR claims [it is inconceivable that either was surprised to learn of its significance to the GSM family of standards], I consider the discussion about the ETSI IPR policy informative but ultimately of academic interest only as respects Nokia. The non-assert is key......
Rudi Brewer's opinion unequivocally states that the agreement was intended to cover CDMA products only.
I agree “mostly” with your thoughts, and thanks for pointing out Rudi Brewer’s opinion.
Re: >>> “ the three year non-assert was intended to delay the incredibly difficult but inevitable problems of dealing with the issue until now, and that Q now intends to assert the IPR vigorously in response to Nokia's aggressive litigation stance.
Wrt the 3 years non-assert provision, my thinking is that was intended more as a “cooling off” period after the long, arduous struggle (Q’s planned Spinco, etc) to complete the license extensions. The extension was signed July, 2001 and provided coverage for about 6 years thru April, 2007. My thinking is that the Q desired a perpetual term, and NOK wanted a defined period shorter than 6 years (to perhaps take advantage expiration dates of the Q’s earlier patents / get another chance to lower the rate), and they compromised at 6 years.
I can’t conceive of a reason why NOK would have agreed to that extension knowing that standalone GSM products were excluded.
+ NOK obviously knew that the Q’s GSM IPR was included because of the need for such in dual mode (GSM / CDMA/ WCDMA) products)
+ NOK publicly stated (after the UK filing) “it believed the patents in question were covered by a prior license agreement”
A further mystery is if NOK believed stand alone GSM products were covered, how is it that the Q was not to receive royalties on stand alone GSM products?
+ The likely presumption is that the standalone GSM products were non-royalty bearing, however
+ there is no mention of this by NOK, and
+ in later utterance NOK stated that the offer received from the Q was not FRANDly --"We have received no offer from Qualcomm that was on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."
Therefore as previously stated, and I admit it’s difficult to believe, >>>>>
One has to assume it was a monumental blunder, as NOK certainly would not agree to the extension without a provision for a standalone GSM device.
Your / other’s thoughts appreciated- |
