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 159.42

-1.2%

Jan 16 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: scratchmyback who wrote (59666)	2/2/2007 4:07:08 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) of 197253

Even if the law does/did not require Qualcomm or Unocal to be more open in the standards setting process, obviously the standards setting organization and also the other participants feel they have been screwed. Unocal may have won in the court once, but do you think they could do the same trick another time? And can Qualcomm do it again? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. While there can be some debate on the requirement of Qualcomm's GPRS/EDGE patent disclosures, we all know that isnt the heart of the dispute. The CDMA patents were disclosed in a timely fashion and any company/investor who wasnt aware of Q's royalty demands must have spent the late 90's in a bubble induced fog. It simply isnt credible to state in way shape or form that Qualcomm has been deceptive about what they were going to charge for WCDMA. The real mystery lies in the licensing agreements that other companies have signed. How much is Nokia charging the Chinese WCDMA/GSM handset manufacturers? How about LG or Pantech? Nobody knows.... Slacker

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next