I have read Qualcomm's response, and I would say that I would not want to be the Nokia officer who decides 'Yes, let's take a chance in the Delaware court and see what the good Judge decides.' .
I really don't think that the Nokia BOD, etc. is sitting around telling themselves 'the worst that can happen is we have to pay money'.
If the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count VI that Nokia has materially breached that (Nokia imagined) license,
or if the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count IX that Nokia has rejected and terminated its right to elect the extension provided by the SULA, or if the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count X that Nokia has breached its obligations under the SULA by failing to pay royalties in a timely manner, and Qualcomm is entitled to terminate the 2001 SULA in all respects, or if the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count XI that Nokia has materially breached its obligations to offer contracts to Qualcomm licensees as required by the contract, which entitles Qualcomm to terminate the 2001 SULA in all respects, and to recover damages, or if the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count XII, Nokia has materially breached the covenant of good faith, thereby entitling Qualcomm to terminate the 2001 SULA in all respects and to recover damages,
and Qualcomm then decides to split the company, and Nokia is obligated to license their IPR to chipmaker SPINCOII, and Qualcomm has now exhausted its obligations to offer any deal to Nokia for 3G IPR, then it's just "<yawn>, we'll just have to pay some more money", huh, Slacker?
I would not want to be holding Nokia stock if this thing goes into court in July. |
