Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 159.42

-1.2%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: slacker711 who wrote (67823)	8/17/2007 1:16:57 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (2) of 197241

Slacker, Re: QCOM v NOK / ITC, and >>> Any thoughts on this case? Personally, I find it hard to believe that an arbitrator is going to rule that Nokia automatically renewed the contract unless there was a provision for this in the contract. This would have meant that Nokia was actually in a worse position in the negotiations than if they had not had the option . Per Sag’s post earlier today, perhaps NOK “was actually in a worse position “, i.e. the Q’s new negotiating position included a higher royalty rate, thus Simonson’s vow “We won't pay more “>>>>>> Snip >>>>>>>>>> A longtime agreement under which Nokia pays patent royalties to Qualcomm expires April 9, and executives from both sides have expressed doubt that a deal will be reached by then. Rick Simonson, Nokia's chief financial officer, vowed that his company "will hold our ground" in pushing for lower royalty rates. "We won't pay more," Mr. Simonson said in an interview yesterday. "We expect to pay less."<i/>

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next