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 170.90

-1.3%

Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JGoren who wrote (76732)	4/30/2008 10:19:38 AM
From: bronx	Read Replies (2) of 196568

Nomura makes a couple of points. The new one is the importance of the implementation patents. Their reasoning is interesting but it's painful to contemplate the years of uncertainty before/if NOK starts paying again. But before Nomura gets to discussing implementation patents, they argue/assume that Q's bundling will not survive. This could in fact go either way. There are lots of papers on whether bundling is tying, and whether bundling/tying is anticompetitive. It used to be assumed that a monopolist (e.g., a patent holder) could only be anticompetitive when bundling, but it's not so sure anymore. Where a monopoly power (patent) is tied to other goods, it's now case by case (Microsoft), with the test being whether consumers are hurt or the market skewed. The common sense argument that any part has to be cheaper than the whole is not the issue.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next