mQ- has the Q been listening to your rants???
QCOM v BRCM v NOK, et all.
Been away from the boards for a time / attempting to play catch up / make some sense out of all of the legal commentary postings (thanks), etc.
I tend to agree with Jay’s take in his post of re: QCOM v BRCM ITC injunction “some arguments “ (3/21), and BDAZZ’s comment “ Good point. Shouldn't we all be hoping BRCM prevails in the injunction. ” in reply to Jay’s >>” In the meantime, from QCOM's perspective, it is great to have BRCM claiming that infringing one claim of one patent should mandate an injunction against the offending product: this provides excellent precedent for QCOM to claim that Nokia's violation of many patents should lead to an injunction against any handsets which use EDGE and WCDMA from the unlicensed Nokia. ”
This is my understanding>>>
1. The Q supports the use of the injunction in true patent abuse cases.
2. The BRCM ITC case remedy appears to provide for the use of the injunction, apparently even in minor patent infractions.
3. If the injunction can be used in this situation, it would even appear more appropriate against NOK re: GSM/GPRS/EDGE theft and even more so in WCDMA products.
4. The mere fact that the injunction remedy is considered , and a QCOM “loss” in the BRCM skirmish, establishes the precedent to win the war against NOK via the injunction use.
5. And, as Jay point’s out-
5.a. “ The patent in question will probably not even stand up to legal patent scrutiny”,
5.b. “This is the perfect patent case to take before the full commission because if QCOM loses the case, there is probably nothing really at stake (because they could simply de activate the power saving option)”
Or,
6. The Q already has a design around solution that avoids their use of the BRCM patent in any event if the injunction is granted.
If the above is correct, it’s a win / win for the Q in the long run, with perhaps negative PR in the short term, for it establishes the basis for using the injunction against NOK.
7. Now I see from rkral / Mindy that it was actually QCOM that prolonged this issue (injunction) requesting a hearing before the commission when apparently the ALJ was not recommending the injunction remedy.
This appears to support the “theory” that the Q wouldn’t mind the injunction to being considered / imposed, again perhaps “setting the stage” for such to be imposed against NOK.
8. Now we see the injunction being discussed in the recent WSJ article >>>
Nokia, Qualcomm Face Licensing Dispute
By DON CLARK
March 26, 2007 7:01 p.m.
” But Louis Lupin, Qualcomm's general counsel, promises a series of bangs --expanding the current litigation between the companies to a string of new patent lawsuits. They would target Nokia products that can't now be attacked because they are covered by the licensing agreement, he said. Qualcomm will seek injunctions to stop Nokia from shipping cellphones that infringe the patents, he said, and also for damages.
"Whether they pay us in April or next year when we get a damages award -- we are going to get paid," Mr. Lupin said. Nokia has "vastly more exposure than we do" in terms of the revenue that could be interrupted by court injunctions against selling cellphones, he added.”
9. There seems to be a disagreement in who has more to lose with this added quite from NOK>>
“ I would think they have more to lose than we have to lose," Mr. Simonson said.
I think that QCOM pretty much debunked Mr. Simonson’s rationale With Steve’s London Day Slide
+ If a WCDMA chip price is 10% of a handset, and
+ If Nokia WCDMA handsets sold are 2x Qualcomm WCDMA chips sold, then
=> Nokia WCDMA revenue exposed is 20x Qualcomm revenue exposed.
Now, CFO Simonson can do some numbers spinning based on sales regions, etc, but a factor of 20 Times exposure is fairly significant to overcome with “spin”.
10. WRT, Simonson’s contention that QCOM is not plain “fair” >>> “as Qualcomm did in the existing agreement. That deal was reached at a time when Nokia had fewer relevant patents of its own that should offset Qualcomm's, Mr. Simonson said.”
Simonson appears to now be speaking of the “existing (2001) agreement whereas in his recent CNBS interview he spoke of how things have changed since the original agreement in the early ‘90’s.
Altman’s London Day presentation pretty much debunked Simonson’s contentions, again>>
So What changed since Nokia last agreed to our royalty rates? (2001 extension w/ WCDMA)
+ QUALCOMM’s patent position has grown exponentially
+ WCDMA is deployed in 133 networks / 55 countries, and rapidly growing*
+ HSDPA launched in 65 networks / 39 countries*
+ QUALCOMM has entered into more than 40 additional WCDMA license agreements at our standard rates (for a total of 70+ WCDMA licenses)
+ Nokia’s royalty payments to QUALCOMM have increased 9 fold on an annual basis, and continue to grow
+ Nokia faces stiff competition from manufacturers enabled by QUALCOMM
+ Nokia has tried but failed to establish a significant royalty bearing CDMA/WCDMA licensing program
Further, NOK in its Dec 2005 Capital Market Days Presentation self- proclaimed its WCDMA patent share at 13%, but amazingly only 10 months later claimed a 25% WCDMA patent share (based on the Goodman- Myers report—originally presented as an independent study only later to be discovered that it was commissioned and fully funded by NOKIA).
11. Now we read this interesting quote from Mr. Simonson>>>
"We won't pay more," Mr. Simonson said in an interview Monday. "We expect to pay less."
Does this suggest that the Q’s royalty rate proposed to NOK in the license extension position is actually higher that the current contracted rate???????
mQ, has the Q been listening to your rants????? |
