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 161.39-1.9%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: rkral who wrote (75504)3/15/2008 9:54:29 AM
From: patrickp  Read Replies (2) of 197226
 
Re: "Paid up patents"
While I am not a lawyer. the arguments in the recent Supreme Court case suggests that "paid up" has nothing to do with expiration of the patent(s), but rather refers to sales/production stream.

For example, NOK argues that if chip maker XYZ pays royalty rights to QCOM for CDMA chips they make, then that payment "pays up" all royalty obligations. And when NOK uses those chips from XYZ to make/sell CDMA phones, they argue that they shouldn't have to also pay royalties to QCOM because XYZ has already paid them.

In most cases this argument has merit, UNLESS the contract with XYZ specifically states that their payment to QCOM does not pay up the royalty obligations. The briefs submitted by QCOM and others made that exact point, and seemed to get a friendly reception by the court.

The good judge in Delaware undoubtedly understands this concept. I have never seen any court throw out a valid contract that was willingly entered into by informed parties (and NOK has lots of lawyers to keep them informed) where both parties gave and received benefit from the contract.

Nokia's goose is cooked, and they know it. All this other bs is stalling for time, hoping that QCOM will blink or Nokia can catch a lucky break from some legal body, somewhere, somehow. The "we've paid billions" garbage is not a legal concept ... it just explains their desperate motivation.
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