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: 100cfm who wrote (143898)	7/24/2006 3:49:21 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 152472

100cfm, re: Patent citations and “I wonder what the percentage of Q patents are cited in the NOK wcdma baseband. In other words is NOKs argument based on the fact that in their own chips they use mostly their own patents?” That would be “nice” info to know also. However, using the automobile analogy, if the Q’s (Essential- Fundamental) are for the Engine, Trans, Brakes, etc while NOK’s (Essential- with alternatives / optional features)- are for the ashtrays, cup holders, carpets,moon-roof, etc ....... yada, yada, yada. Qualcomm’s recent Licensing/ IPR Overview CC reflected an enlightening discussion on patents>>> Snips>>>>. + concept of essential patents + fundamental patents. Those without which the standard wouldn't exist + there are also patents that may be essential for a standard that derive their essentiality solely through a selection process within a standards setting organization........ But they're not fundamental to how the standard works and alternatives might have been selected in their place. + In addition, patents may be essential for optional features or services within a standard but themselves not be essential for every application of the standard. + The reason for this explanation is there's a value proposition that comes with the different types of essential patents that a company may have and those of a fundamental nature may in fact be -- are in fact more valuable generally than the others Posted by: Data_Rox In reply to: Data_Rox who wrote msg# 17293 Date:7/12/2006 9:12:41 AM Post # of 17359 scribbles of Q's Licensing/IPR Overview CC (slides are at qualcomm.com ) June 21, 2006 Licensing/IPR Overview Conference Call & Webcast

To: 100cfm who wrote (143898)	7/24/2006 6:36:12 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Nokia and QUALCOMM Licensing 100, << is NOKs argument based on the fact that in their own chips they use mostly their own patents? >> No. Absolutely not. Nokia's fabless chip designs include essential IP from numerous patent holders, and Nokia acknowledges that. Their argument is based on proportionality of essential patents, and in renegotiating their contract with QUALCOMM, they are demanding that their essential IP be recognized, respected, and compensated for. In other words, they want a net down from any 'standard rate' or reciprocal royalty bearing licenses, for their essential IP used in CDMA, GSM/EDGE, WCDMA & HSPA, chip manufacture by QUALCOMM. They will continue to not allow a pass through of any IP rights they grant, and will not want any contract that contains covenants that inhibit in any way their capability to pursue licensing of CDMA, GSM/EDGE, WCDMA & HSPA, OFDM/OFDMA, and WiMAX, from QUALCOMM licensees. - Eric -