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: barty who wrote (143307)	7/5/2006 4:56:40 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

This outfit makes an interesting suggestion: Since a PC card represents the pure communication value of Q's IPR, why not base the royalty on the ASP of a PC card? By doing so, the value of Q's IPR can be determined without reference to the value added to a handset by non-radio IPR owned by others. htps://www.arete.net/REPORTS/3GIPR250105.pdf Such a view IMO does not take into account the value which Q adds to the WCDMA handset market. We'll see lots more of these creative proposals, all of which slice Q's royalty income.

To: barty who wrote (143307)	7/5/2006 6:57:01 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Pathetic, Barty? What`s pathetic, is denying the historical context in which the current course of negotiations exists. Equally pathetic is justifying one`s position by pointing to short term variations in stock price, or attempting to isolate which of the many factors are responsible for such fluctuations. It`s further pathetic to think that simply because Nokia represents the major component of the GNP of Finland, it can dictate an arbitrary royalty cap for a technology, change the prevailing principles of patent law, or ignore the implications of its previously negotiated agreements. And as for a "buying opportunity" approaching, consider waiting until the GSM/GPRS/EDGE cases are concluded.