The Crucial Difference?
Jeff,
The crucial difference, Eric, is that Nokia concealed the fact that they solely funded the Goodman & Meyers "study", had it widely disseminated, then used it to support their "patent counting" premise, as if it were objective and academic.
They didn't conceal it very well, since on Analysts Day (May 5, 2005) Paul Jacob's referred to the "study as "Nokia funded research" ...
"Well, let me start by reiterating Steve's statement that we don't expect the inclusions of the Nokia funded research into the amount of patents that we own in WCDMA."
Steve Altman had stated earlier in the day ...
We have seen a report that can conclude that Qualcomm owns less than the majority of the patents claimed essential for WCDMA.
That's 1½ months after David Goodman and Robert Myers of Fairfield Resources International (FRI) first presented the study in slide format at IEEE Infocomm 2005 on March 17, 2005 and 1 month after Informa Telecoms and Media refereed to it as "Nokia-backed research" in their April 2005 "3G Mobile/Mobile Handset Analyst" research report.
At the time of that QUALCOMM Analysts Day, and although I didn't realize it for almost three more weeks until shortly after masa linked the report here, the text version of the report and the slides were both available on FRI's web site where Nokia was listed as an FRI client. Thanks to Slacker for that providing that info in May 2005
As for any "crucial difference," please spare us the polemics. As the critique of "the
Nokia G&M paper" as Martin and De Meyer refer to it in their posted on the QUALCOMM Legal News website disclaims ...
Dr. Martin And Carl De Meyer Are advisors to QUALCOMM Inc. in connection with competition law and intellectual property matters. The views expressed in this paper cannot be attributed to QUALCOMM Inc. or any other clients of CapAnalysis LLC or Howrey LLP.
You buy that one? If so, I have a bridge over the Chesapeake to sell ya.
"Advisors is an interesting appellation for a representative of the law firm representing QUALCOMM in litigation in multiple jurisdictions on at least two continents.
The crucial difference in the two reports is that the Goodman and Myers study flags an two important issues ... 1.) that the IPR Policies of SSOs and SDO's that are OP's in the 3GPPs are based on requisite declaration of properly defined essential patents; and 2.) the overdeclaration of essential patents to SDO's and SSO's.
The Goodman and Myers study which was subsequently presented again at IEEE Wirelesscomm 2005 in June of 2005 can still be linked from the FRI website and it is now also available from the Nokia IPR website.
3G Cellular Standards and Patents
David J. Goodman (Brooklyn Polytechnic University)
Robert A. Myers (Fairfield Resources International)
frlicense.com
tinyurl.com
Cheers,
- Eric - |
