To: barty who wrote (143275 ) 7/4/2006 2:50:43 PM From: JeffreyHF Read Replies (2) | Respond to Barty, the point of the greater commercial importance of Qualcomm`s WCDMA patents ceased to be open to reasonable challenge, when Ericsson settled the litigation after "discovery" in 1999, and the rest of the sophisticated majors, and minors, voluntarily negotiated agreements acknowledging same. Qualcomm`s essential and fundamental blocking patents have gotten deeper since then.Perhaps you contend Nokia was ignorant, mistaken, misinformed, or inept 5 years back? The relative commercial values of their portfolios having been then established, constituting "custom and usage" in their industry, Nokia now seeks to rewrite the rules by "patent counting". Can`t win on the merits, so let`s redefine the game. That`s why they hired the "1 hour evaluators" of patent essentiality, and started a global spin campaign. It may work in the press, perhaps it has worked in the press, but the rules of evidence, procedure, and substantive law that control legal proceedings in the USA are quite different, dispassionate, and egalitarian.(That, of course, is why the EC complaint was filed).If I were Nokia, facing the pending GSM/GPRS/EDGE actions in the United States, or some other GSMA member who might be incidentally damaged by Nokia`s intransigence, I`d do exactly what they eventually will do - settle. The risk of losing is far too great.
