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: slacker711 who wrote (142785)	6/13/2006 5:36:14 PM
From: BDAZZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

To anyone: In reference to this thread, what is the worst case scenario for Nokia to simply ignore IPR and sell product for years to come. Nokia's bad faith practices of ignoring moral obligations to other companies and ignoring court and arbitration rulings screwed IDCC for years with this tactic. They learned well how to fup the civilized, good faith system that took centuries to put into place. Now well versed they move against QCOM. Are they so ignorant that they don't see the danger to themselves, starting a very dangerous precendent that could damage the entire world IPR structure, including Nokia's own GSM IPR from other handset makers. It is one simple step away from the other handset makers deciding: Nokia gets away with it so screw paying GSM IPR. Simply state that payments would no longer be made because it was determined that their GSM IPR is not legit, then wait for the courts to make a determination years from now, appeal those, ask for arbitration and stall as much as possible.

To: slacker711 who wrote (142785)	6/14/2006 11:37:27 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

if you are right then Qualcomm's WCDMA chipset sales are also going to be at risk Slacker, if I recall correctly, QCOM has a cross licensing agreement with Texas Instruments, which allows QCOM to design and sell WCDMA chipsets. QCOM may also use additional IP from Nokia, in which case the termination of the QCOM-NOK license would cause some trouble. Regarding treble damages, it is my understanding that they apply to an infringement of a U.S. patent (irrespective of where the products are sold) if a jury in a federal court finds that the infringement was intentional. The treble damages in the U.S. statute are designed to deter a company from infringing patents. As a practical matter, patent cases often are resolved before a trial takes place because of the time and expense for both sides. The QUALCOMM-Ericsson case was resolved following a hearing, in which both sides have an opportunity to place their cards on the table and get an opinion from a judge as to who would most likely prevail at trial. At that point (about April, 1999, if I recall correctly), Ericsson decided it would be better to settle with QCOM, the price for which included Ericsson's agreement to purchase QUALCOMM's base station modem business. We should not lose sight of the fact that QUALCOMM's huge patent portfolio, extending well beyond CDMA technology, virtually ensures that no matter what kind of wireless communication is employed by a service provider in virtually any part of the world, at least some QUALCOMM IP will be essential. The various manufacturers and service providers will eventually work out licensing and royalty fees that are mutually advantageous. But the one constant in this whole scenario is that QCOM will continue to collect revenue in one form or another for a good many years. Art