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: Cooters who wrote (89852)	12/11/2000 9:00:21 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

More than the one-time charge, I wonder about the continuing royalty payments. Specifically, I am curious how this: the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce ruled that Qualcomm must continue to share royalties it receives only on sales of certain code division multiple access, or CDMA, equipment for use in South Korea is consistent with this: "The ICA's decision does not in any way affect Qualcomm's ability to collect royalties on CDMA, WCDMA or other CDMA-based standards, and has no impact on the ability of Qualcomm To collect royalties from sales of CDMA equipment in Korea."

To: Cooters who wrote (89852)	12/11/2000 9:49:26 AM
From: CAtechTrader	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Notice that the ruling applies only to "sales of its technology in South Korea." The ICA ruling has to do with the particulars of Korean Intellectual Property Law and QCOM's contract there, not worldwide law. In addition throughout the decision the ICA consistently referred to the technology in question and QCOM as "Its technology" denoting that QCOM owns the technology. I believe this decision is a very narrow one based on a quirk in Korean Law and the relevant contract and provides no legal traction for others elsewhere. It might provide FUD, but no legal basis.