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: Brihack who wrote (143468)	7/10/2006 8:58:35 PM
From: matherandlowell	Respond to of 152472

"Perhaps the whole situation is easily explained by Nokia reporting that Qualcomm simply forgot to ask for anything from Nokia in exchange for Nokia's use of this IPR" Bri, Perhaps. Or, perhaps the lawsuits will help remind Nokia that written contracts govern the world of business. Qualcomm is full of such nice guys that I'm sure they will simply be willing to accept their usual FRAND rate for the use of their IP. //j.

To: Brihack who wrote (143468)	7/10/2006 9:44:31 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Bri, Re: “ Perhaps the whole situation is easily explained by Nokia reporting that Qualcomm simply forgot to ask for anything from Nokia in exchange for Nokia's use of this IPR.” Again, from the Reuters article it appears that >>>NOK’s backtracking from their original response---1st patents were covered by prior license, and now 2nd- received no offer that was FRANDly. From my read, NOK did not say they received no offer from the Q. They merely stated they received no FRAND offer, implying the offer they received was not FRANDly. Snip from Reuters article.>>>>>>>>>> Plummer said. "We have received no offer from Qualcomm that was on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms." The Finnish company had said last month, when Qualcomm announced the trade complaint action, that it would respond "as necessary." At the time, Nokia had said it believed the patents in question were covered by a prior license agreement.