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: Dave who wrote (13357)	7/5/2001 10:28:15 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34857

While Nokia may not have been able to "milk" the best deal out of Qualcomm, I find it hard to believe that Nokia gave up its patent portfolio for nothing. For example, did Nokia grant a royalty free license to Qualcomm in exchange for reduced royalty rates for infrastructure? Or, perhaps Qualcomm does, in fact, have to pay royalties to Nokia. I emailed Nokia's IR department and, unfortunately, the contact is away till the 9th. As I appreciate it, infra rates are substantially below handset rates. I don't have the exact figures but I've heard that they are in the 2 1/2% range. While the actual infra rates naturally played a part in the structure of the deal, I don't think that the rates themselves were the driving force. Instead, I think it was the need for an infra license that was important as Spinco's upcoming birth which would have allowed Q to demand higher rates on all licenses. I think Nokia caved because it knew that it stood to pay a lot more in royalties if it had to deal with QClassic after the spin off. Plus, the carriers that are interested in 3G infra from Nokia were surely pressing it to get rid of the infra uncertainties. The Q probably argued during the negotiations that Spinco would certainly obtain GSM IPR through cross-licenses, trading its "seed" CDMA IPR it received from QClassic. Thus, it could achieve its goal one way or the other. Nokia probably recognized this and gave in to the inevitable. Nokia is paying the standard rate pursuant to its original license, 4% or thereabouts, in exchange for royalty-free license to Q of GSM IPR. After Spinco, it might have had to pay more. I think that's probably the quid pro quo for the GSM IPR. Getting the GSM IPR now instead of having to deal for it after Spinco's birth, and being subject to whatever uncertainties that might have caused, probably kept Q from demanding the higher rates it could have asked for after Spinco came into existence. It all makes sense to me now.

To: Dave who wrote (13357)	7/5/2001 10:57:09 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Another point. I don't know how much Nokia's share may be, but I understand that GSM royalties for non-pooled members are substantially higher than the amounts charged by the Q. The Q's coup is made even sweeter when one considers that all the necessary IPR for a GSM air interface is contained in the TI and Nokia stack. This latter point via JGoren, who knows what he is talking about and is reliable. This explains the reason for Q's deal with TI, a mystery to me for a long time. The Q appears to be now fully cross licensed for all necessary GSM IPR, and is not paying a penny for it. The poor bastards who are not cross-licensed for GSM IPR are in a serious competitive disadvantage with Q as respects 3G and multi-mode chips. Sweet, very sweet.