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 164.53

-0.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (76825)	5/3/2008 9:49:27 AM
From: whisperer	Read Replies (1) of 197208

The converse problem is that greedy licensors could, via injunction, prevent an implementor from practicing a standard, workarounds to any infringed patent presumably violating the standard. That is a straw man argument. Obtaining an injunction isn’t guaranteed. If the licensor seeks an injunction through the courts, the implementor can counterclaim that the licensor did not fulfill their obligation of offering a FRAND royalty rate. What NOK claims is that the licensor cannot even seek an injunction. Alternatively, if an implementor feels that an untimely injuction is likely, they can simply agree to the licensor’s royalty rate initially, allowing them to gain traction in the market, and then later on claim the royalty rate is not FRAND and let the courts sort it out. No irreparable harm. Isn’t this in fact exactly what NOK did? They have every right to take their claim that QCOM’s offer is not FRAND to the courts and it’ll get sorted out. What I don’t agree with is their claim that QCOM is barred from seeking an injunction. -W

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next