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 164.53

-0.4%

Jan 14 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (75568)	3/19/2008 11:15:11 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) of 197214

Paragraph 66 makes a patent exhaustion type argument under French law by which it claims the patent holder makes a decision as to from whom it collects the FRAND compensation, so Nokia has no obligation to pay anything for IPR. That one is going to be really hard to sustain. If you read the paragraphs on implied contracts, that actually supports Qcom's position that Nokia has extended the 2001 licensing agreement. It interestingly asserts Nokia has escrowed $80 million for royalties with its quarterly reserve of $20 million. There is nothing by which Nokia has alleged that it actually identified the patents it is using. The problem with Nokia's approach is that it only applies to valid patents that it practices, placing the burden on Qcom to know what patents are being practiced and to litigate each. This is how Nokia seeks to avoid bundling of the patents. Nokia forgets that a patent license is nothing but an agreement not to sue for infringement and that bundling is an accepted method of efficiency. Qcom is going to need some French lawyers, Dutch won't do. There may be a simple solution. If Nokia wants it that way, then it's 6% for each patent and they are added together for a total of 18%. Nokia can't get bundling pricing under its theory, yet that's what it wants. Second, the whole thing is stupid. ETSI is an obligation to license "essential patents" plural for cdma in all forms; that is the subject matter of the contract under French law. It is bundled from the get go and never contemplated the tortured patent by patent theory proposed by the Hagfish Monopolists.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next