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: Qgent who wrote (75884)	3/27/2008 12:46:56 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) of 197246

Yes, you are right. I am attempting to paraphrase Nokia's argument, and I fall into the habit of stating what they assert as true, as true. Advocacy has its pitfalls. I also did not appropriately paraphrase Nok's perspective on GSM. As you noted, Nok's actual claim with respect to GSM was "Nokia did not seek or maintain meaningful value for its own patents - even though it held a significant portfolio of wireless technology patents essential to the practice of the GSM standard - because at the tiem Qualcomm was only marketing products compliant with its own CAI/CDMAone system. Qualcomm was not marketing products that used GSM." Nokia went on to characterize the change between '92 and '01 as, in part, "Third, Qualcomm began to require access to Nokia's technology so that Qualcomm could manufacture UMTS chipsets that were also compatible with GSM systems"... That is a really lame argument on why they gave away their family jewels. I agree. However, if Nokia had held 1 patent against Qualcomm's five, I doubt the difference would be material back then, unless and until they held a paid up license to Qualcomm's trump cards, in which case they would be in the position to offset something against nothing. What you should have said was that, Nokia allegedly holds a paid up license that was critical. Nokia knows Qualcomm will argue otherwise. Agreed. In balance, we should also be stating that Qualcomm alledgedgly has been proposing FRAND terms. Qualcomm knows Nokia will argue otherwise <ggg>

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next