QUALCOMM on Nokia (and IPR Licensing, Litigation, and Pass Throughs)
<< Eric, you forgot to mention that [1] whether or not the Qualcomm/Nokia BREW license provides pass through rights was not finally adjudicated in the Kyocera case (presumably because the case was settled, before that factual and/or legal issue was decided), and that [2] the Kyocera royalty rate/obligation is minimal, according to Altman`s wag. [3] He explicitly referenced both of the above, and stated that Nokia and Qualcomm continue to disagree as to whether their license provides pass through rights. My comments are not intended to be direct quotations, but they are a fair characterization of the essence of Altman`s words. I invite you to provide the precise transcript language, if I have spoken in error >>
[1] I didn't "forget to mention", Jeff. I don't yet have a transcript of Monday's event, and I no longer have a secretary that can accurately take shorthand considerably faster than I can dictate, or webcast presenters can speak.
Moreover, and more importantly, the purpose and focus of my post #4376 was the litigation between QUALCOMM and Nokia that has been initiated in the past two years including the 1st seldom-mentioned action initiated by QUALCOMM ("that was not litigated to conclusion") and the last 3 that have not been celebrated in press releases or specifically mentioned by QUALCOMM, but that were alluded to generally on Monday.
[2] I suspect that the Kyocera royalty rate to Nokia is "minimal" compared to what QUALCOMM collects from them (and others). That is a whole separate discussion we could hold on the change in Nokia's IP and licensing posture that occurred in 2002 (according to OPK) but we can save that for another discussion even though Robin Hood and his Merry COO may be labouring under some delusions.
[3] Altman made specific comments on Nokia and pass through rights, but after a 2nd and 3rd listen and contrary to what I stated prior, I believe that it was Lou Lupin that alluded to QUALCOMM v. Nokia (Civil Action No. 04-CV-1605 S.D. Cal. 2004) without naming it, and the codicil in Nokia's BREW BLA that formed its basis. I'll come back to that and Lou's and Steve's comments on Nokia pass through rights further on.
Lacking a transcript at this time, and for those that are interested QUALCOMM's London IPR topic as it relates to Nokia I would suggest a listen (or relisten) to Steve Altman's complete infomercial at QUALCOMM's London Analyst day and both Q&As at that event. Steve devoted 14 minutes specifically to Nokia in his presentation and he. Lou Lupin, and Paul Jacobs, fielded Nokia specific questions in the Q&A's. The webcast and presentation slides can be linked from 'Events and Presentations' at this URL ...
qualcomm.com
Steve's slides on QUALCOMM Licensing and IPR are here and slides 12 through 20 are Nokia specific ...
tinyurl.com
Here are pertinent tape marker indices for the QUALCOMM IPR, Licensing, Nokia specific discussion, pending complaints, and WiMax (OFDMA) IPR ...
• Steve Altman November 13 London Presentation
1:03 Presentaion Begins
1:12 Nokia comments begin
1:26 EC Complaint comments begin
1:29 KFTC and JFTC comment
1:29 Broadcom comments begin
1:32 Myths and Realities
1:36 WiMax IPR comments begin
1:41 Presentation Ends
Q&A 1 begins at 1:41:30 with a Paul Sagawa (Sanford Bernstein) question related to the Nokia topic and Q&A 2 begins at 3:59 with a SoC question for Sanjay from an e-mail non-attendee.
[3] Paraphrasing Altman at 1:34 ...
>> We have very substantial pass through rights ... we have them from every handset manufacturer out there ... we have a dispute with Nokia on that. <<
Feel free to flesh that out if you care to.
[3] At 4:05 in Q&A 2 in response to a question by Dr. Windsor (Nomura) trying to clarify pass through rights from Nokia (GSM, WCDMA?) and overall, Lou Lupin I believe, and definitely not Steve, responded. Transcribing (or paraphrasing closely) that response:
>> "On pass throughs with respect to Nokia we are somewhat limited in what we can say but in litigation that we had with Nokia over the last couple of years it became public that the primary pass throughs result from BREW agreements we have with Nokia and other BREW licensees that preclude Nokia being able to sue other BREW licensees for patent infringement of with respect to BREW products and Steve alluded earlier to the existence of some disputes with Nokia over the scope of that protection and that was an issue that was litigated but not to conclusion. We do have some other pass throughs from them from a different source and I can't talk about them today but the primary pass throughs are in conjunction with the BREW agreement." <<
Steve added blah, blah, blah, comments but nothing specifically pertinent to Nokia and Dr. Windsor's questions weren't really addressed with the specificity he requested.
Until such time as I hear differently -- and since according to Lou a BLA is the primary source of any pass throughs that may or may not exist -- I personally will take the April 20, 2006 word of the Executive COB of Nokia who is also now Executive COB of the world's 3rd largest corporation on that subject ...
... we are very committed to licensing our IPR on very reasonable and non-discriminatory returns, the plan terms. We respect other people’s IPR, and we are ready to reciprocate to participate in accessing the rights to such IPR, and we expect others to respect the similar principles. If you then look at how we have been able to approach all of this, we have also not only been much more active during the last three or four years particularly, but also much more efficient in supporting our rights, and one example being that a lot of discussion has been going around on pass-through rights. Nokia does not provide ANY pass-through rights to its patents ...
seekingalpha.com
I will then let QUALCOMM dispute that to their heart's content. Rather obviously with Nokia continuing to expend over $4 Billion USD per year on R&D, and continuing to actively pursue licensing agreements particularly when existing licenses which in the past have been primarily cross-license, expire ...
... I doubt that Nokia is the least bit interested in letting QUALCOMM be the R&D (and patent) aggregator for the wireless industry.
That kind of reminds me of when Bill Gates suggested to 'Jurma' that Nokia should stick to boxmaking and let Microsoft do their (and others') software. What was that term you used elsewhere to refer to Nokia execs? Megolamania? Megalomaniacs? My recall is that I responded that there were more megalomaniacs (not to mention spinmeisters) per cubic yard in SoCal than there are in all the Scandinavian and Nordic countries combined (or something to that effect) -- and notice that I didn't reference the Redmond lair of the Beast further north.
As for other OEMs with a major R&D spend and large IP portfolios I seriously doubt that Ericsson, Motorola, Alcatel soon to be Alcatel-Lucent, and others, are the least bit interested in letting QUALCOMM be the R&D (and patent) aggregator for the wireless industry. While it is unlikely to happen, Nokia and QUALCOMM could settle tomorrow, but if they did, the clash between IP and open standards will continue and the wannabe R&D (and patent) aggregator for the industry will remain under siege, and under a cloud.
With Altman arguing his opponent's brief on Monday, I fervently hope that OPK, Rick, and Tero, don't reciprocate and spend considerably less time on IPR at CMD in Amsterdam than Paul, Steve, and Lou spent in London.
Best,
- Eric - |
