Ben, Re: 1992- NOK’s Simsonson’s Q1FY07 CC QCOM statements-
“Any future royalty arrangement with Qualcomm needs to address Qualcomm's latter patents only. This agreement should reflect that we believe that to Qualcomm's relative contribution to the development of technology used in mobile devices, especially W CDMA, is significantly lower than in 1992.
Again, NOK’s CFO Mr. (”We are not prone to hyperbole. We try to stick with the facts”) Simonson continues his “hyperbole / distorting the **facts** with his continued reference to 1992, misleading the public into believing that the termination of NOK’s QCOM license was from their original agreement and not from their 2001 license extension.
One wonder’s why the 1992 date is so important to Mr. Simonson?
And, why Mr. Simonson knowingly continues to use the fabricated 1992 reference at the risk of destroying his credibility in promoting this charade on the unknowing public?
Could it be that NOK’s (NOK6’s / POS) total anti- FRAND case against Qualcomm falls flat on its face if the mid 2001 date is the reference point???
Again, Qualcomm's President Steve Altman stated the following during their London Analyst Meeting (Nov 13, 2006)- which provides background information regarding the above, and more specifically the Nokia license re-negotiation issues
qualcomm.com
"And what's interesting is, if you recall, the WCDMA standard was finalized in about 2000, or just prior to Nokia signing the 2001 agreement. And it's pretty well known that Nokia, and some other European companies, tried their best to design a new specification, a WCDMA standard, trying their best to maximize their intellectual property contribution and minimize our contribution.
And, in fact, you'll recall there was quite a bit of press that they were going to design around QUALCOMM's patents. They failed at that. And in 2001, after negotiations, they agreed to pay the same rates that they paid in 1992.
So they considered the patent portfolio of QUALCOMM. They considered their patent portfolio. They were aware of the WCDMA standard, and the contributions in the patents that apply to it.
And nonetheless they agreed to this. And I think that says a lot.
I think it says that they understood the value of our patent portfolio versus theirs at the time, and the contributions that we bring to the marketplace. Not only that, at their request, and whether they really viewed it as not being in accordance with FRAND, they obtained an option to be able to extend the exact same terms of that agreement, which they could exercise anytime, to the end of 2008. So our portfolio was worth those rates in 1992, and then again in 2001.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
What's equally puzzling is why no one in the Wall St community (media / analysts) has called NOK on this charade /
nor asked a single question during their CC re: the QCOM license expiration when it's got mountains of press during the past several weeks and is obviously a major issue on Wall St????? . |
