RAMTRONIAN's Cache Inn 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.

Politics : RAMTRONIAN's Cache Inn

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: NightOwl who wrote (12978)	3/20/2007 7:07:19 PM
From: jimtracker1	Read Replies (1) of 14464

"I don't think that cross-licensing deal calls for either company to make cash royalty payments which is why QCOM sued TXN, and started its own DSP line in the past year. That could weaken Nokia's arguments a tad." You kinda have the facts a little messed up. TXN and QCOM cross licensed DSP for CDMA technology, on a royalty free basis. QCOM sued TXN even though they had a nondisclosure agreement, TXN made public the terms. Qualcomm is in the process of competing with the TXN diVinci DSP's claiming superior performance while using half the power. To go a step further, TXN was unable to deliver CDMA chipsets to NOK thus creating the crunch for the ongoing legal mess. The basics are that NOK conspired with several other QCOM licensee's to file suit against QCOM because the royalty the Q charges (5%) is in their minds excessive even though they have been charging 17% for GSM and WCDMA technology. NOK's license expires the first part of April and they suddenly realize they are in deep dodo without a new license. I have stated on previous posts over the last couple of years that this would be a very large battle and will change the face of wireless no matter who wins. NOK is losing its profit margin as the Asian mfgrs are out selling the gummy boot people from Finland. To make matters worse the economy in Finland revolves almost exclusively around NOK. The claim made today is very weird and if upheld would eliminate NOK's revenue stream from their own GSM IP. They essentially are biting their own posterior. This in a nutshell is why we have not seen FRAM in NOK's cellphones to date. As why make a chipset if their will be an injunction leveled against the importation of NOK cellphones? As usual JMHO.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next