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: carranza2 who wrote (48528)	11/7/2005 8:29:26 PM
From: blimfark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196546

A question about royalties: Qualcomm's 5% is of the handset price if I am not mistaken. Are the GSM percentages off the chip price or the handset price? Perhaps one issue is having to pay royalties on the entire handset vs. just on the chip. I haven't read any differentiation in the way in which royalties are calculated and was just wondering. Long time Q long on tenterhooks waiting any overnight news.

To: carranza2 who wrote (48528)	11/7/2005 9:00:10 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196546

Carranza: It doesn't seem intuitively correct that the spread spectrum stuff is relevant. I guarantee that modern GSM looks a lot more like CDMA than you might imagine. In order to keep up with CDMA they became more like it. For instance they significantly increased their hopping rate in order to get a reuse closer to 1 (sound familiar?). In order to do so they had to move to a much quicker and finer power control scheme (sound familiar?). Nokia going nuclear would involve a claim that Q is abusing its patent position by selectively using its GSM portfolio to discipline any companies that challenge its WCDMA licensing scheme. That would be one method. Another is to assert dormant IP on new or updated standards for which final agreements are not yet nailed down. E.g. EVDO. Pretty much guaranteed that Nokia has patents that can do this. Doing so will result in a nuclear winter where no one can do much of anything (injunction against Q, injunction against Nokia, ...). Since it will be one measure of what is fair and reasonable, this will look bad indeed for them in the EC investigation which will focus on what exactly, failing specific regulatory quantification, constitutes FRAN I agree completely that this is one possible reason that Q brought this suit. To expose this. JeffreyHF sagely pointed out last July that Lupin had discussed the issue of Q's GSM IPR when BRCM sued and that others distinct from BRCM were exposed Don't understand this at all. It is obvious that Q was content to let the GSM IPR issue slide or was perhaps saving it in its back pocket for a rainy day. Agreed. The question is whether they looked at how much IP Nokia has on EVDO etc. Why Nokia went to the EC in the company of a sleazy player like BRCM is beyond me. Emotion. Almost certainly. The European GSM folks appear to be emotionally involved. I don't believe for a second that emotions don't enter into large corporate decisions. One of Q's primary strengths used to be resisting giving into this mindset. Hope it still is. You'll note that a lot of this BS began after Flarion was acquired. Agree completely that this is unlikely to be entirely coincidental. They saw the writing on the wall that they would have to negotiate under the same conditions for 4G and decided the Broadcom suit might be a good way out. Clark