EM, Re: "That was about the weakest, sappiest retort you've ever posted."
Agreed- also thought it was lame attempt at defending/ supporting NOK / Simonson and again revealing true colors /further harming his credibility.
In defending his “champion”, he took my “fabricated 1992 reference” completely out of context and rambled on with meaningless diatribe on NOK’s history. I find it interesting that he could not effectively argue the **facts** and had to resort to using NOK’s / Simonson’s tactics- hyperbole and distortion.
Further, I find it particularly noteworthy that as NOK’s / GSM’s (web mobile wireless boards) chief authority and NOK’s / GSM’s principal defender, he apparently recognized (it required immediate response) but could not effectively dispute the significance of the 1992 assertions resulting in comments such as >>”Huh ???...What a BS response”.
A minor point I think not. If a minor point, why continue to use a Fabricated 1992 contract reference vs the actual date of last contract signing being mid 2001???
Getting curiouser and curiouser- Why NOK’s straight shooting “just the facts, mam” Simonson (and NOK’s preeminent defender) continue to go out of their way knowingly and erroneously promoting / promulgating 1992as the reference date of their last QCOM license when if fact its mid-2001.
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???
Could it be that the EC recognizes same, thus the silence for 1 ½ years ???
Could it be that Wall St. (most media / “analysts”) are still in the dark, or also just being silent???
When are we going to see some of these **facts** in the press / reports from the Wall St. crowd??
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. |
