Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 163.32

+2.3%

Nov 21 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mmeggs who wrote (15633)	9/29/1998 2:49:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (1) of 152472

>Rajala, that still leaves a couple questions unanswered. > >1. Why the offer to trade patents? Or the implied offer to pay "low" >royalties? Offer to trade patents? Where is that? "Low" royalties, you refer to "fair and reasonable"? How would you phrase this if you wanted to sound diplomatic? >They think Dr. Jacobs is a swell guy? I don't know what they think of Dr. J. but "swell" probably is not the first thing that comes into their heads. >2. Why does nearly every statement regarding W-CDMA contain a denial >that Q IPR is infringed? Maybe they think so. >3. Why is Q being harassed and pressured to give up the IPR (for >"reasonable" royalties) if no one really thinks it is needed for >W-CDMA anyway? I have not seen one document by ETSI or Ericsson or any other sniveling European outlaw wanting IPR for W-CDMA or admitting Q having any. CDMA1 is different. >I see what you're saying in that E would need to make some kind of >statement regarding Q's IPR involvement - denying it. What are you talking about? They deny it. >But if they really felt their position was that strong, wouldn't they >just deny it and move on? That's pretty much what they are doing. - rajala

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next