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 159.42-1.2%Jan 16 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75602)3/19/2008 11:26:05 PM
From: slacker711  Read Replies (3) of 197260
 
Interesting thread.

I'm curious how you square Nokia's current position on FRAND with the following quotes from a case they brought against Vitelcom that covered essential GSM/GPRS patents.

qualcomm.com

In its complaint against Vitelcom, Nokia accepted Mr.
Stasik’s findings:

“It is truly difficult to determine the separate
value of either of the individual patents. In
practice, the relationship between the number
of patents and the total amount of royalties is
not linear. For example, a license for a single
essential patent may be 2.5%, a license for two
essential patents can be 3.5% and a license
for three essential patents can be 4%, while a
license for ten or more essential patents rarely
exceeds 5%.”


Of course, I am sure that Qualcomm cut those quotes to make them sound as beneficial as possible, but I think the underlying point is likely true....Nokia was taking a similar position that Q is now.

My general thought on Nokia's FRAND arguments is that they are going to need a judge to break new ground. It isnt as if lawsuits covering patents subject to FRAND havent occurred before and AFAIK, injunctions have been part and parcel of the process.

Slacker
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext