Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting 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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 155.82

-1.3%

Jan 23 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: waitwatchwander who wrote (59074)	1/25/2007 5:06:11 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) of 197351

That's precisely what I said. Unfortunately, I posted it on the other thread. On April 10, if NOK has not extended, the infringement actions are likely to be filed. Remember, what PJ said, it was going to take an event to get NOK to back off. Despite its bravado, NOK is going to have crunch time in April. The issue is already joined in the case where NOK sought an injunction on the basis of FRAND. NOK will have to assess the true risk of an injunction against it. I still think NOK will go to the mat and force Qcom to bring the infringement action for injunction. NOK will figure that the litigation buys it time and it can "settle" at any time before the judge announces whether NOK will be enjoined. And, it figures it is such a big player and thorn in Qcom's side that Qcom will agree to a settlement even if NOK is about to face an injunction. NOK probably reads true deadline as the end of 2008. The question is: If NOK exercises its option in 2008, does that insulate itself from April 9, 2007? If it does, how can Qcom obtain an injunction until 2008; the issue is not ripe? Maybe that is part of the reason the judge required NOK first to admit that it will infringe specifically-identified patents before the court would hear NOK's request for an injunction against Qcom? That admission could work both ways. If NOK does so, then the question of insulation would be answered in the negative and Qcom would be able to counter that NOK must be enjoined from selling products without a license without waiting until the end of 2008 to see if NOK exercises its extension optioin. NOK wanted a one-way street but didn't get it. That's why the judge's decision was so important and Altman emphasized that decision as NOK being unsuccessful. At least that's my interpretation. Message 23220186

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next