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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: w molloy who wrote (1645)	7/31/2000 12:22:05 AM
From: Theophile	Respond to of 196649

There is an area of Standards which requires licensing IPR to all comers. How the cross licensing works is unknown to me. I can only assume that since both Q! and any GSM IPR holder are both bound by the Standards rules to license to all comers, there may exist problems when licensing to one another. They might consider the old IPR as valuable as the new IPR. I have seen speculation on this, but no hard facts indicating this is so. Apparently the management at Q! feels there is an advantage to separating the IPR involved in the basic Standard from the IPR involved in evolving that IPR which is in the Standard. Since the Standards committee has proven rather open to bias in the past, I wonder if this will contribute to further turmoil in the Standards body. Comments? Regards, Martin Thomas

To: w molloy who wrote (1645)	7/31/2000 12:46:01 AM
From: Randall Knight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196649

What if the GSM IPR holders decide that SpinCo's "essential/necessary/useful CDMA IPR " are insufficient to buy entry into the patent pool? It is QCOM management's position that QCOM as a whole holds a vast number of essential patents. So many, in fact, that some can be transferred to SpinCo. Both companies would hold essential patents. Essential means without a license from both QCOM parent and SpinCo, there is no W-CDMA. That should be sufficient to get them into the patent pool.

To: w molloy who wrote (1645)	7/31/2000 1:57:07 AM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196649

If the GSM IPR holders were to ask for all CDMA patents pre SpinCo - why would they change their stance simply because there are two companies rather than one? They may not change their stance. However, the legal reality will be that essential/necessary/useful IPR will be owned by two separate legal entities (QCOM and Spinco). If all a prospective licensee needs is a license from just QCOM, I assume QCOM will grant if on a fair and non-discriminatory basis. If they do not need Spinco IPR, no problem. What if the GSM IPR holders decide that SpinCo's "essential/necessary/useful CDMA IPR " are insufficient to buy entry into the patent pool? They may, and thereby deprive themselves of Spinco's IPR. If they do not want to be in the CDMA market, no problem. If they can work around Spinco's IPR, again no problem. If they want to be in the CDMA market and need Spinco's IPR as well, they got a problem! <IMHO>