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: Stock Farmer who wrote (129340)	5/27/2003 2:29:43 PM
From: qveauriche	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Perhaps in sparring between civil litigants, but I don't know that the same low ethics apply to a public company making statements covered by SEC regs to the investing public. At hte time the deal was acknowledged, admittedly based on the limited information the companies chose to make available, by everyone from Tero to Perry Laforge as a total capitulation by Nokia. Neither company has done or said anything since then to refute that widely held assumption. As further information, I have corresponded with Scott Moritz this morning, and his reply was that the "next to nil" comment of his experts had to do with chip sales rather, that Nokia would clearly owe the full royalty on handset sales.This is based on the press release referring to royalties on infrastructure and "subscriber equipment" This raises questions I don't know the answer to- 1. Does Q typically collect both at the chipset and handset points of sale where the chipmaking and handsetmaking functions are not vertically integrated into one compnay like Nokia? 2. And if not, then why is the royalty free TXN (a non-vertically integrated chipmaker) deal, where the royalty is collected only at the handset level from the handset maker, considered so unique? 3. If chipmakers and handset makers both have to pay the royalty, why in the world was either (i) that not included in the Nokia deal as well,or(ii)some disclosure made that it wasn't. Perhaps it was because no one anticipated that Nokia would ever make cdma chipsales to third parties in addition to making them for use in their own phones. When I have time I will look up some PRs about other licensing agreements with pure chipmakers to see what terminology (i.e. "subscriber equipment) is used. Best regards. 2.