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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LarsA who wrote (9532)	3/1/2001 12:52:10 PM
From: Caxton Rhodes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

That is what I am confused about. Supposedly there aren't royalties on chips, just devices. So who ever sold the devices or infrastructure, would have to pay the GSM IPR holders not Qualcomm. So I am thinking, that if say Kyocera sells a cdma/gsm phone, Kyocera would handle royalty payments GSM IPR holders. Cax

To: LarsA who wrote (9532)	3/1/2001 1:16:58 PM
From: foundation	Respond to of 34857

But if QCOM makes money by using GSM IPR they would be expected to pay for it no? --------- QCOM won't make money using GSM IPR. Not a cent. However, SpinCo will. And SpinCo will have its own IPR for leverage with those who have not already signed 3G licenses and agreed to share IPO - in addition to paying Q royalties - as was clearly stated to be the case during yesterday's analyst day meeting..... Only NOK, Siemens and Alcatel have not - all of whom will require both Q and SpinCo IPR for 3G. This will require cash royalties to Q and an IP exchange with SpinCo.... No wonder GSM - or in Orwellian tradition - "3GSM" vendors are royally pissed. I'd be too. What a kick in the head... <g>