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 181.84

+0.9%

Jan 8 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (75722)	3/25/2008 2:15:43 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) of 197124

It seems to me that you have adopted the mathematical definition, that if f(x)=y then f(2x) =2f(x). No, actually I've adopted a more simple mathematical formula - not an equality, but a pair of inequalities: $X <= $X+$Y >= $Y The value of a patent portfolio containing everything can not be equal to the value of part of that patent portfolio, unless the other part has a value of zero. So, Qualcomm can not charge Nokia the same amount for some of it's patents than it is legitimately charging everybody else for the same some patents, plus others Not without being either unreasonable, unfair, or discriminatory, somewhere. Your analogy with respect to death sentences is interesting, there are some similarities. However, two (or more) deaths are precisely equal to one death, rendering death valuations in a death portfolio infinitely non-linear. In contrast, patent valuations in a patent portfolio have considerably less non-linearity.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next