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: JeffreyHF who wrote (54304)	8/9/2006 9:02:24 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196548

The complaint will be a lot more telling than the PR, which is internally inconsistent. It is at first a defensive measure then it is said to follow "the European Telecommunications Standardization Institute (ETSI) dispute resolution process." First, a defensive measure to get things into one forum, then consistent with ETSI's process. Wassup with that? I smell inconsistencies, a cornered rat striking out. Things must not be going well for Nokia in the other actions.

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (54304)	8/9/2006 9:15:48 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196548

Re: The Nokia Headline ... which reads: Nokia asks Delaware court to enforce Qualcomm's contractual obligations in essential patent licensing, << I`m partial to the portion of the press release that concedes Qualcomm has IPR that is essential to GSM. >> It doesn't in any way shape or manner. Read it again, counsellor. Make note of two words when you do. Alleged and declared. Nokia is seeking a Court order to affirm that Qualcomm is not entitled to injunctive relief in relation to alleged infringement of patents declared essential to a standard. - Eric -

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (54304)	8/9/2006 11:27:34 AM
From: BDAZZ	Respond to of 196548

>>I`m partial to the portion of the press release that concedes Qualcomm has IPR that is essential to GSM.<< Agree. No longer is it "if" Nokia infringed. The action is an admission. Nokia would not have made this admission if the infringement were some small, obscure, peripheral, "oh excuse me, I didn't know" action. Their action at this time appears to indicate they knowingly engaged in patent infringement, and that QCOM has a much better case than the analysts realize. Now Nok's only hope is this offense/defense action, claiming they made good faith attempts to license the IPR, but QCOM demanded grossly unreasonable terms, all too easily proven false.