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: benhorseman who wrote (48619)	8/29/2006 12:09:33 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196365

More stupidity and dishonesty from Nokia. I thought I'd better click upstream and find the quote. Bingo, and with it another, like a daisy chain of lies and falsehood: <It claimed that Qualcomm, which had “essential and valid patents” for technologies which had to be used by all mobile-phone manufacturers, was not licensing the same on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to everyone.> Have they not heard of Skype phones for a start, which operate on wifi? Have they not heard of Wimax which is supposed to be a QUALCOMM killer. Maybe Nokia is right and Wimax is owned by QCOM too, along with Flarion's OFDM and their own OFDM patents. I don't think Iridium is paying QCOM any royalties and it is very mobile. Nokia is asserting a monopoly which doesn't exist. Especially if instead of ring-fencing "mobile" as the monopoly, one considers electronic or photonic communications. There are swarms of ways of communicating. There is Inmarsat too. Not to mention others [apologies to those others for not giving them a plug]. <“We believe that this claim is further evidence that Qualcomm does not honor its obligations to standards-setting organisations, and uses litigation against any party that disagrees with it,” the Finnish corporation’s Communications Vice President, Arja Suominen told the Business Standard .> Does he really believe that or is he just saying it for form? I don't believe him. They spent years trying to twist QCOM up with W-CDMA to force them into giving away their patents as part of the W-CDMA divvy up process [as a repeat of the GSM approach]. They have tried to corner QCOM into "obligations". Frustrated, they have failed to do so and QCOM has demanded their standard royalty rate for W-CDMA and the others can charge what they like which is FRANDly. 5% for QCOM and 5% for the rest is highly FRANDly when one considers the merits of W-CDMA compared with GSM [especially the GSM which doesn't use QCOM patents]. And what the heck is wrong with litigation if there's a disagreement about the agreement? For Go-'s sake, that's the whole point of contracts, agreements, laws, lawyers, judges and litigation. It's to sort out disagreements which the parties can't sort out. Then the grand finale of absurdity: <Nokia also contends that it would not have invested heavily in developing the WCDMA standard if it had known that Qualcomm would charge differential rates from it and its competitors. Lupin however defended his company’s rights to offer flexible rates to different manufacturers.> When people say ridiculous things like that, it means they have no case. If they had a case, they would just lay it out, crunch the opposition and get back to business without further ado. Mqurice