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: tradeyourstocks who wrote (12254)	7/1/2001 12:49:23 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196977

The settlement, consistent with their 1990 agreement, also confirms that both Motorola and QUALCOMM have the right to market CDMA chipsets without paying a royalty to the other company based on chipset sales. Qualcomm management stated on several occasions durIng the late 1990 period, that the MOT's ASIC license was a "self supply", and clarified that only the original ASIC licensee's and their successors possessed the ability to resell CDMA Asics. I think you don't understand the resolution of the litigation.. Up until the finalization of the litigation.. Qualcomm contended that Motorola only had the ability to "resell commercial Asics" under "certain of the companies patents" (filed before July 3, 1995).. Thus Qualcomm contended that Motorola did not have the ability/license to supply "resale Asics" which contained Patents that were filed (after July 3, 1995).. Motorola contested this assumption with litigation. And Motorla was not allowed to supply "Resale Asics" during the period up until the finalization of the litigation.. From the 1999 10-K (pre litigation agreement) Motorola and Lucent also have licenses under certain of the Company's patents to manufacture and sell CDMA chips to certain of the Company's licensees that hold separate licenses under all applicable intellectual property rights of the Company incorporated in such chips. From the 2000 10-K (post litigation agreement) "Under the terms of their agreements, Motorola and Lucent also have rights under Company patents* to licensees that hold separate licenses."* Do you see the difference in the terms of Motorola's/LU's ability to re-sell Asics in the view of Qualcomm?? That is called "Administration of Technology Entitlement" Motorola operated for years being limited in their abilites to re-sell Asics against Qualcomm (As Qualcomm management noted on several occasions) .. Even though, it appears that in the end.. Qualcomm agreed to settle the litigation via abiding by the original terms of the 1990 agreement.. Also note the Motorola does not have to pay royalties on Re-sale Asic shipments!! Seem like MOT was in a position of strength in this litigation.. I have found "in the past" that Qualcomm tends to "settle litigation" when their position is weak (Motorola, Interdigital, Ericsson).. and tends to fight in court when their position is strong! Could Motorola have challenged Qualcomm as a major supplier of CDMA Asics from 1996 to 2000, if they had been allowed to do so, by the terms of the original 1990 agreement with Qualcomm?? And notice that Motorola does not even have to pay Qualcomm a royalty on their Asic sales! PCSTEL