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: alanrs who wrote (53287)	7/6/2006 7:46:21 PM
From: quartersawyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197012

The market is the best mechanism for assigning value My favorite argument in this same discussion with Eric L. months ago on the NOK thread. Message 22273186 and subsequent replies [edit-- doesn't it go by default now to Regulators and Commissions and Courts?]

To: alanrs who wrote (53287)	7/6/2006 8:31:27 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197012

It is absurdly awkward that there is no accepted impartial academic mechanism to assign relative value to individual patents or families of patents. IMO thank god there is no such thing. The market is the best mechanism for assigning value. If QCOM has built a substantially better mouse trap, market forces should prevail. I disagree. Without an accepted mechanism to judge relative merit a mouse can disable an elephant with only a little luck. Like MAD where one player has 10 MTon bombs and the other has 10 KTon bombs. There is probably some Game Theory theory to cover how likely it is to get a poor decision with all or nothing moves. And it won't be heartening to people who hope for rational decisions (think of all the times that big companies have had to pony up to Trolls for stupid little patents). Clark

To: alanrs who wrote (53287)	7/7/2006 9:22:28 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197012

The W-CDMA Patent Licensing Programme Alan, << It is absurdly awkward that there is no accepted impartial academic mechanism to assign relative value to individual patents or families of patents. IMO thank god there is no such thing. >> There is such a thing (are such things) for technology collaboratively developed within a Standards Setting Organization (SSO) or Standards Development Organization (SDO). Specifically, in the case of 3GSM UMTS WCDMA (W-CDMA) developed and standardized within 3GPP by the members of 6 SSO/SDOs (ARIB, CCSA, ETSI, ATIS, TTA, and TTC.) the mechanism utilized by the W-CDMA Patent Licensing Programme (W-CDMA PLP), which is a patent platform, not a patent pool, has been accepted and approved by the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ), the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC), and the European Commission, Competition Directorate (EC), and currently licenses the patent rights certified as essential by 9 major companies that have joined the program to date, covering all components of the 3GPP standards from Release 3 (R'99) and beyond: Koreas's ETRI, Fujitsu, KPN, Mitsubishi, NEC, NTT DoCoMo, NTT, Sharp and Siemens. The four companies (Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia, QUALCOMM) with the majority of uncertified but declared essential patents have chosen not to join the program -- so one could legitimately quibble over the word "accepted" in the context in which you used it. Background and an overview of the mechanism are described in detail in this book which is available in hardcover or electronic form ... tinyurl.com An much shorter overview of the program in slide format presented in May to the ETSI General Assembly Intellectual Property Rights Group (ETSI GA-IPR) is available here ... 3glicensing.com A complete list of all W-CDMA PLP IPEC certified essential patents (as of June 2006) and a short overview of the IPEC certification process for essential patents is here ... Message 22603155 Best, - Eric -