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 159.61

-1.1%

3:27 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75634)	3/20/2008 3:13:11 PM
From: bronx	Read Replies (1) of 197238

There is no reason why the sum of a few parts should not add up to more than the single licence. QCOM may be avoiding this because it is, as you note, costly to parse and dice. The customer (NOK) should expect to pay accordingly, and even pay more for a few even than for the bundle. Cross-licencing in general assumes a similar "all applicable patents" approach, even when one party owes the other compensation. NOK also has patents, and has been seeking injunctions vs QCOM (wasn't there something before the ITC?)---something it now claims Q cannot do. If it set a per-patent price, I wonder what it was?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next