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: JGoren who wrote (5545)	12/17/2000 12:08:29 PM
From: brian h	Respond to of 197207

Do you think our new Texan president will help? :-) Well. QCOM is fighting it alone now without much backing from its gov.. Sigh!

To: JGoren who wrote (5545)	12/18/2000 9:59:58 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197207

You have pointed out an area of concern that I cannot adequately resolve. Imagine a scenario whereby a country in which CDMA handsets are manufactured passes a law stating that IPR payments to any one company cannot exceed 1% of the fair retail value of the handset. The manufacturer of the handset has an agreement with the Q whereby it is contractually bound to pay 5% fees. After the law is passed, the manufacturer refuses to pay the additional 4%, citing its country's law as the reason. This is as good a way to appropriate someone else's technology as I can imagine--pay ludicrously low royalty rates for it. There are probably all kinds of problems (treaty obligations, WTO rules, international trade agreements, etc.) with such a hypothetical law. Moreover, we all know that those problems are negotiated eventually with a lot of give and take on both sides. Unfotunately, the negotiations are tortous, lengthy and pain-staking. How can the Q protect itself from the effects of such a scenario?