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 166.05

+0.6%

Nov 19 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bon Scott who wrote (17052)	10/23/1998 3:42:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (3) of 152472

Bon: You have asked a very important question, since everybody selling IS-95 equipment would technically be infringing on ERICY's IPR were it to prevail (BTW QC has NO indemnification liability). Within this context it should be clear that ERICY specific pursuit of QCOM is an attempt to find some fulcrum to force a more favorable license agreement. ERICY needs A LOT of QC IPR to do W-CDMA and it needs something to trade otherwise QC can simply refuse to license it or demand its usual and customary royalty. As I have said before, ERICY is in a very difficult position...even if it were to prevail in the patent litigation, the appeals process would be tied up in courts for years. Meanwhile, QC would continue to block deployment of W-CDMA while continuing development and deployment of high data rate cdmaOne. Check, with three months to mate. Best regards, Gregg

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next