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: Ingenious who wrote (90989)	12/31/2000 1:52:56 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Perhaps I'll call you "El Pedante", and see if you catch the pun which I really like. I don't need to be lectured on the meaning of simple words. Nokia has taken the public position (Jorma Ollila first said so many months ago, before the latest statement in Nokia's web site) that its CDMAOne license is sufficiently broad to encompass 3G presumably because the essential patents which are licensed are the same essential patents which enable WCDMA. Can you think of any other reason for Nokia to take such a stance? Have you read the "heart and soul" patents (rake receiver, power control, etc.) for CDMA? I have. They clearly encompass wideband applications. The various patent offices which have ruled in Q's favor and against Nokia on the point seem to have the clear understanding you appear to lack. For your edification, WCDMA is a thinly disguised attempt to evade Q's death grip on all flavors of CDMA. It has become increasingly clear that the attempt was a failure as Q has prevailed in every instance where the issue has been fought. Nokia's public stance is an admission that the "heart and soul" patents apply to WCDMA. It's now only about how much Q gets paid for WCDMA. The fact that many other companies have signed up for WCDMA licenses supports my point. Naturally, as you correctly point out, there will be negotiations for the advanced software and technology, but that's obvious. You seem to have lost sight of the fact that it is the "heart and soul" patents which are the most valuable. Otherwise, Q would have joined the patent pool long ago and agreed to take whatever royalty scraps were to be thrown its way. Nokia has clearly admitted (after being hammered at the patent offices and seen many, many competitors sign up for 3G licenses) that the "heart and soul" patents apply to WCDMA because it now claims that its rights to use them are covered by the original license. The stance is a last-ditch attempt to evade Q's death grip on all flavors of CDMA. It is important because it indicates that Nokia recognizes that Q also has a death grip on WCDMA's essential patents. That's an admission in my book. And the stance makes sense. It assures markets and carriers that Nokia is not some emotion and grudge driven cowboy that will act irrationally in the face of a virtual certainty. It also gets the mother of all negotiations on track, with a big (but bogus) sticking point out of the way. You seem to think that an admission can only be made whenever it adversely affects someone's interest. Your logic again fails you as an admission clearly can be a simple recognition of a fact which is not capable of being rationally disputed. Apart from that serious problem with your logic, it is clear that the Nokia stance is an admission, even if one were to adopt your interesting definition. Imagine that negotiations break down, and that a court battle takes place in which Nokia takes the position that Q has no essential patents for WCDMA. Can you imagine the embarrassment the poor Nokia bastard who testifies on this point when he is shown Jorma's statement that the original CDMA license covers WCDMA, and the logical corollary arising from such a statement, i.e., that Nokia, by the admission of its CEO, owes the Q WCDMA royalties equal to those established by the original license? Do you agree that the Q has the "heart and soul" patents for all forms of CDMA? If you don't, it's hard to believe that you are a Q long. If you do, I suggest that you, like Rajala, enjoy petty arguments and making fine but essentially meaningless distinctions. Basta.