SI
SI
discoversearch

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: carranza2 who wrote (48515)11/7/2005 4:16:30 PM
From: DWB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 196543
 
My attempts to parse what seems like the opposing press releases....

Qualcomm:

Qualcomm accused Nokia of infringing its patents by making or selling products in the United States that comply with GSM standards. It said the lawsuit affected 11 Qualcomm patents and one belonging to its wholly owned subsidiary, SnapTrack Inc.

Translation: You play with fire... you get burned.

"Until recently, we had been led to believe that these issues might be resolved cooperatively and amicably," Qualcomm lawyer and Senior Vice President Louis M. Lupin said.

Translation: We told them we weren't going to lower our rates for WCDMA, and that it would be unwise to push the matter in the press... because that 3-legged patent/royalty/technology stool they were standing on looked a bit wobbly... we hadn't even gotten to negotiations when they went running to the EC for relief...

"However, it now appears that a cooperative resolution of these issues is quite unlikely and we must move forward with the litigation in order to protect our rights and to get these issues resolved," Lupin added in a statement.

Translation: When they passed out after holding their breath during our talks, we figured we weren't going to get much farther without help from the courts...

Nokie-Pokie:

Nokia said Qualcomm has a duty to license the patents for the technology on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

Translation: Can you believe they want us to pay for GSM???? The AUDACITY!

"Nokia is disappointed Qualcomm has taken this step given they have yet to engage in any licensing negotiations concerning these matters," it said.

Translation: We left the room after they told us we'd have to pay up for that GSM technology we've been freeloading for the last few years... so they never got a chance to tell us how much we'd have to pay... brilliant, huh?

Nokia also criticized the timing of the lawsuit, which came less than two weeks after it and five other companies complained to the European Commission about Qualcomm's competitive practices.

Translation: How obvious that they're just trying to distract everyone from the REAL issues here... If the 'suit don't fit.. you must acquit!



To: carranza2 who wrote (48515)11/7/2005 7:30:33 PM
From: Clarksterh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 196543
 
Wouldn't it be something if it turns out that Q, though not a Cabalista, ends up as a result of this suit to be a gatekeeper to all GSM and CDMA stuff?

I don't think any scenario has Q recieving appreciable royalties for GSM/GPRS/EDGE. Not that they couldn't file and even win. But at what cost? Counter suits equally valid, ... .

I'd bet good money that Nokia probably does have a reasonable IP portfolio inre GSM/TDMA since they got there long before Q. Thus I suspect/hope that this has a different set of purposes. E.g.:

a) Voiding the argument that was made in one of the analyses of this battle - that Q is unfairly collecting royalties on dual mode phones.

b) Bringing the cozy GSM licensing practices to light for defense in the EC dispute ("Maybe we aren't perfect, but we're more reasonable than the complainers.")

c) Convince Nokia and other players that this is Q's Bread and Butter and they are willing to risk it all (and going nuclear like this is risking A LOT since there is no question that there are probably some Nokia IP that, for example, pertain to EVDO and not yet agreed-to so Q is probably vulnerable.)

...

My biggest fear is that this was purely reactive. Done in anger or due to feeling a need to do something. In the past it is very clear that Qualcomm thought 3 or 4 steps ahead, and this does not have this feel. Hope I am wrong.

Clark