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 172.31-2.2%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: matherandlowell who wrote (60690)3/2/2007 3:49:27 PM
From: limtex  Read Replies (1) of 196977
 
ML - I'm nolawyer but it seems to me that NOk's argument is that while they entered into a license agreement covering W-CDMA but that was a few years ago. Since that time NOKK have been doing thier own research and have developed their own IPR.

So what they now appear to be saying is that the patent pool maix has changed and that Q's IPR now makes a much samller contribution to the whole. Further they say that they do not even need Q's IPR at allas they have have a work-around.

So the two end up in front of a judge called by Q to injunct. NOK says but we don't need Q's IPR....Q say nonsense.....result....a trial.....in other words no injunctions and a decade or so before the case comes to trial. On top of that NOK's legal team could win a Nobel prize in delaying things.

I hope some of the lawyers on the thread can say that this strategy won't work for NOK.

Best,

L
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