SI
SI
discoversearch

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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 179.02+3.7%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Qpeeper who wrote (57571)12/11/2006 9:58:37 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) of 196498
 
A decent paper, a bit dense at times.

It unfortunately does not deal with one aspect of NOK's arguments which is independent of patent counting and which forms an important part of the attack on Q : NOK contends that its "essential" patents in UMTS are significant in relation to the IPR in the entire standard, including Q's. And since "essential" IPR is necessary to the implementation of the standard, NOK argues that Q is charging it too much.

I should think that determining whether a patent is "essential" to the standard is a fairly easy thing to do since the term is defined as IPR without which the standard could not be implemented. I have unfortunately not seen any study which takes claims that a patent is essential to UMTS apart patent by patent to determine whether NOK's claim is true.

I think patent counting has itself been pretty much discredited, but the dismantling of NOK's arguments will require a thorough and analysis of its claims to essential IPR and a comparison of such claims to Q's essential IPR.

The problem with the "essential" standard is that a lot of the essential IPR is politically based. I think this is where Q may hurt as the little I know about how Q plays the political game in the standard setting organizations suggests that it may not do so as well as others.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News