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: quidditch who wrote (38038)	8/16/1999 9:30:00 AM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Steve Malsin. MOT Vs I* vs Q IRID is said not to work properly in that it drops calls, fails to connect, and has other grimlins. It seems to me that the company that designed and built it (MOT) is responsible for these problems. These technocal problems contributed significantly to the failure of IRID. Apparantly MOT will claim in the Q suit that it was an early developer of CDMA and as such was quite knowledgable concerning the CDMA technology. We anticipate that G* will work very well. Liability law in the US involves "strict laibility". Basically this means that a "deep pocket" company or individual that causes 20% of the problem can be made to pay for 100% of the damages. It seems to me that MOT was neglegent for two reasons. First, it built a system that just doesn't work and as such probably can't escape liability for much of the cost of the failure. Second, it knew or should have known that the best available technology was CDMA and proceded with its IRID TDMA system that didn't work. Add to this the fact that G* will become a glowing success. So, it seems to me that MOT is in a catch 22 situation. If it defends against QCOM, advising the courts just how hard it worked on CDMA, then someone will agur in the I* suits that it was wilfully and recklessly neglegent not to come forth and advise investors that the G* technology was superior. Yes, this is a simplistic arguement that, perhaps fails to include differences in concept. But, would a jury not look through all the complexities and see that MOT could and should have stopped this still born satellite system. JohnG LAtest news on MOT vs Q SCHAUMBURG, ILLINOIS, U.S.A., 1999 AUG 13 (NB) -- By Martin Stone, Newsbytes. Motorola, Inc. [NYSE:MOT] said it filed today counterclaims against Qualcomm Inc. [NASDAQ:QCOM], in the action between the two companies involving licensing agreements. In the action, filed in the United States District court for the Southern District of California in San Diego, Motorola claims that Qualcomm breached the most favored nations clause and the royalty sharing provisions of their 1990 agreements. Motorola spokesman Tim Kellogg explained the term favored nations refers to trading partners. Kellogg told Newsbytes the documents have been deposited with the court but that no hearing date had yet been announced. He added that his company is seeking monetary damages in the form of withheld royalties, but would not disclose the amount. Qualcomm vice president of investor relations Julie Cunningham told Newsbytes, "We believe Motorola's counterclaims are baseless and it's probably an attempt on Motorola's part to position itself. We are fully confident that we have met our contractual obligations." In the agreements, the parties cross-licensed certain intellectual property rights and agreed to work together to develop and commercialize code division multiple access (CDMA) technology. Motorola says it agreed to and did in fact invest substantial sums in Qualcomm's development of CDMA technology and made Motorola's technology available to Qualcomm. Qualcomm agreed in return to give Motorola favorable licensing treatment and royalty sharing rights to secure for Motorola an advantage in the CDMA marketplace over later licensees, Motorola says. However, in a statement released July 20, Qualcomm declared it had filed a lawsuit seeking a judgement that Qualcomm has the right to terminate all licenses granted to Motorola under their 1990 patent license agreement, while retaining all licenses granted by Motorola to Qualcomm under the same agreement. Qualcomm's complaint followed a number of earlier actions between the parties relating to the agreement which have been pending for more than two years. The July complaint alleges that Motorola committed breaches of the accord that include pursuing a lawsuit against Qualcomm for infringement of patents that are in fact licensed to Qualcomm under the agreement. The July filing also sought a ruling that upon termination of the agreement, the patents formerly licensed to Motorola would be infringed by (CDMA) handsets and network infrastructure equipment made and sold by Motorola. Although Motorola says its contributions played an important role in the success and dissemination of CDMA technology, the company claims Qualcomm has embarked upon and executed a licensing strategy designed to deprive Motorola of the agreed-upon benefits. Motorola not only alleges a breach of the agreements but also infers that Qualcomm breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the contracts. Motorola seeks specific enforcement, damages and injunctive relief. The dispute began in March 1997 when Motorola alleged that Qualcomm's then recently announced Q phone infringed on design and utility patents held by Motorola. In April 1997, the San Diego federal court denied Motorola's motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby permitting Qualcomm to continue to manufacture, market and sell the Q phone. In January 1998, the US Court of Appeals upheld the decision not to enjoin Qualcomm from manufacturing and selling Q phones. Qualcomm's litigation eventually expanded to include several consolidated cases for patent and trade infringement and claims of breach of the agreement and unfair competition. Cunningham says those cases will probably be heard next year. Reported by Newsbytes.com, newsbytes.com .