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 : 3G Wireless: Coming Soon or Here Now? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric L who wrote (506)	11/1/2005 5:37:40 PM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 666

Beware of "unintended consequences". Out of this self-induced chaos, a new set of royalty constructs may emerge, though quite different from what was envisioned. The Group Of Six no longer have control over their own destinies, and the new world industry order may be less to their liking. Stay tuned, as it is about to get very interesting.

To: Eric L who wrote (506)	11/3/2005 7:59:36 AM
From: bofp	1 Recommendation Respond to of 666

Just a quick comment. Mr. Windsor is mostly right in this piece but he makes one error that many observers make. On a legal basis, a patent is either essential or not essential - its a binary concept. There is no more essential or less essential. Qualcomm loves to argue about how "important" it's IPR is but there is no legal basis for this in royalty negotiation. A patent infringement case starts with "Is it a valid patent, yes or no?", procedes to "does the product in question infringe upon the patent, yes or no?", then determines damages based on 15 criteria called the "Georgia Pacific Factors". Existence of prior contracts, industry norms and product profitability are big factors, all of which would support Qualcomm's demands, but the "importance" of the patents is immaterial.