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%

Jan 16 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: slacker711 who wrote (75607)	3/20/2008 1:52:07 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 197270

I recall also some effort on NOK's part to limit the total royalty burden to 5%, which sounds suspiciously - though not exactly - like a bundle. Weren't the Cabal's GSM IP rights bundled, too? The 'no bundle' argument is a bit odd, though I am not ready to say it is mertitless because I know nothing of French law. I do know what a stipulation pour autri is as we have them in La., but that is about it. One thing I have learned from practicing here, though I rarely get into esoteric issues involving the Louisiana Napoleonic Code, is that the differences in the substantive law are mostly semantic. The broad principles are essentially the same as in the common law. Not an expert in the Nappy Code as I did not take a single course in it despite the fact that it is 1/3 of the Bar exam. I also made a point of not ever buying a copy of it before I took the Bar exam. I figured it would just confuse me so I relied exclusively on the prep. course. It worked. Excuse the rambling.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next