Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JGoren who wrote (36177)	7/20/1999 3:28:00 PM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Infringement suit: another strategem: JGoren, remedies sought by Q may well include termination by Q! of MOT's licenses (don't know what Pantech is) and I assume that the licenses have severability clauses. But here's a take: if MOT is terminated, this reduces (possibly underreported) handset/ASIC sales and thus royalties; MOT is a major vendor in volume. As a commercial matter, Q probably could not ramp up itself in the near or medium term to the volumes now executed by MOT in addition to the monthly volumes Q now has--it is capacity constrained; thus the threat of termination is the hammer to improve the terms to Q of any existing, or amended and restated, license. MOT would be strangled without CDMA handset sales. As I recall, in the SSB research piece, MOT has the low, legacy royalty rate dating back to when Q! had no bargaining power. As a commercial matter, it won't be as simple or transparent as upping the rate (similar to ERICY cloaking its deal in terms of reciprocity). But if Q!'s case has merit, termination is not what it will be after, IMHO. Regards. Steven