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: scratchmyback who wrote (53086)	7/3/2006 6:27:48 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197009

Your "if" identifies the obvious flaw in your assumption. "If" the patent portfolios of both Qualcomm and Nokia in WCDMA were both quantitatively and qualitatively equivalent, Nokia would not have agreed to the original WCDMA license. The same is true for Ericsson, who agreed to its cross-license as a litigation setgtlement, rather than risk the outcome of a rapidly approaching trial date, following full legal "discovery".Similarly, all of the others, major and minor, came to terms with Qualcomm without litigation, executing arms-length agreements. Apparently, it is only in today`s business and political reality, that appeals to governmental intervention as a renegotiation tool are strategized. The plea, "Please rescue us from ourselves", is particularly Euro-appealing.

To: scratchmyback who wrote (53086)	7/3/2006 7:46:38 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197009

But the 5% price tag on Qualcomm's WCDMA is another story. If Nokia's WCDMA patent portfolio is as big as Qualcomm's and also the number (and quality of essential patents) is equal One company produces a $200 handset with those patents while the other produces a $20 chipset. The economic value that Nokia extracts from Q's patents is signficantly larger than the value that Q gets from Nokia's patents. Absent a court order, it is virtually impossible that Qualcomm will allow for any signficant reduction in the royalty rate. Slacker

To: scratchmyback who wrote (53086)	7/3/2006 8:32:13 AM
From: iggyl	Respond to of 197009

scrathmyback when you refer to "quality of essential patents" are you referring to "essential patents" where absolutely no other solution exists or "essential patents" where, often based on committee decision, a certain solution is selected but alternative viable solutions could also be avaible?

To: scratchmyback who wrote (53086)	7/3/2006 12:11:29 PM
From: matherandlowell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197009

"is there a court in the US which would simply proclaim that the Qualcomm's patents for WCDMA are worth the 5% royalty?" There are courts which will proclaim that no one can use QCOM's IP without permission. Nokia may get a license for the 5% royalty rate. There is no guarantee of that. The rate might be lower, might be higher. They won't be able to legally sell any WCDMA units without a deal with QCOM--that much is certain. You have to hand it to the Finns though. They started off saying it couldn't work, then that it wouldn't work, then that it couldn't compete, and now that they own it. What a noble people they are. Can't wait to see the legal case that asserts that they have essential IP in CDMA.