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: carranza2 who wrote (91000)	1/2/2001 1:27:38 AM
From: Ingenious	Respond to of 152472

Can you think of any other reason for Nokia to take such a stance? >>>> Yes. Avoid further licensing fees and admissions of patent infringement. Have you read the "heart and soul" patents (rake receiver, power control, etc.) for CDMA? >>> No comment. I have. They clearly encompass wideband applications. >>>> Nothing about patents and the law is ever "clear". >>>> Your opinions are overly broad. The only clear >>>> thing is that you cannot prospectively determine >>>> what these patents will or will not cover. 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. >>>>>> Does not mean they will always prevail. (BTW, your . >>>>>>frequent use of the word "clear" can only mean that >>>>>>you don't have a grasp of this topic. If you knew >>>>>>enough, you would realize that nothing is "clear" and >>>>>>then you would stop using this word. Your argument >>>>>> might even be more convincing.) Naturally, as you correctly point out, there will be negotiations for the advanced software and technology, but that's obvious. >>>>> Again, I am glad all this is obvious to you. Perhaps >>>>> you should enlighten the rest of us. 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. >>>> Call me pedantic, but you are attempting to use the >>>> English language here, eh? You are confusing and your >>>> statements misleading. I would like to know exactly >>>> how Nokia can "admit" something at the same time they >>>> also "claim" the same?? 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. >>>>> Reading your books must be very confusing. My >>>>> condolences. 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. >>>>> I think many people are disputing whether CDMA >>>>> covers WCDMA. In fact, we are disputing it right >>>>> this very mintue. Perhaps you do need to look up >>>>>> this word. 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. >>>>>> Nothing interesting about my dictionary definition. >>>>>> Your definition is much more interesting. 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? >>>>> Not sure if this is a "logical corrollary" as it >>>>> is making several logical leaps of faith. As to >>>>> the embarassment though, if any poor Nokia bastard >>>>> does testify it will be embarrasing and the poor >>>>> B. will likely be fired shortly thereafter. I >>>>> have seen worse things occur. 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. >>>>> I am long on Q but that does not mean my head is in >>>>> the sand. The one thing I have learned is to >>>>> never say never and never say "all". Things just >>>>> don't always occur or never occur. They tend to >>>>> occur every so often. You can believe what you want. >>>>> Whether you are long or short on any stock, it is >>>>> no excuse to become so enamored with your stance that >>>>> you lose sight that the target itself is moving. >>>>> Q is dealing with a moving target and it is hard >>>>> to say that they contemplated using the original >>>>> CDMA patents to cover every flavor and variation. If you do, I suggest that you, like Rajala, enjoy petty arguments and making fine but essentially meaningless distinctions. >>>>> The devil is always in the details. Nothing is >>>>> meaningless.