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: Dennis Roth who wrote (22478)	5/10/2002 10:04:21 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197013

I think part the reason Nokia is floating the cap idea is that hey have grown to 35% of the handset market without ever having to pay any significant sums for IPR, unlike asian competitors. Now for the first time they are going to have to pay out more for IPR than they recieve and they don't like it. Your comment made something go "click." Samsung is increasing its market share in Europe and it is not part of the Cabal. Think of the ramifications of Samsung paying full-freight GSM royalties and still getting a foothold and increasing its European market share. Heap of trouble for the Nokeys.

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (22478)	5/11/2002 1:02:05 PM
From: saukriver	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197013

The Informant I don't see legally how manufactures can collude to fix IPR prices at 5% ASP. When this idea was first floated three years ago it was pointed out that the patent pool scheme could run afoul of U.S. anti-trust and EU competition laws. An industry trust to set and fix IPR prices could be illegal. I reccommend "The Informant" by Kurt Eichenwald of the NYT. amazon.com Better reading than anything John Grisham has done. It explains how the government's relation to its cooperating witness in the ADM-lysine price fixing investigation and trial. Eichenwald is now covering Andersen and Enron for the NYT. I concur that a collective agreement to set a cap on prices should run into U.S. anti-trust problems were it not for the fact that each company (other than NOK) might contribute technology to the pool from which they would draw.