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 156.34+1.4%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: slacker711 who wrote (61748)3/30/2007 3:34:35 PM
From: rkral  Read Replies (1) of 197304
 
"If there was an explicit clause that voided the option due to Nokia infringing, Qualcomm would have stated that in an investor conference. They are only making the argument to the analysts because it is going to be dependent on getting a court to agree."

I can imagine another possible scenario.

The option is voided if Nokia infringes, but Qualcomm cannot explicitly say so because of non-disclosure. So Qualcomm makes statements, if any, that are vague like Nokia's "option could be compromised." (your presumed paraphrase of a Qualcomm reply to a Lehman analyst)

For it's part, Nokia could care less that the option is voided because they have no intention of ever again paying a royalty rate as high as that of the current license ... and they are confident that a court imposed royalty rate will not be higher.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News