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: John Hayman who wrote (144335)	8/15/2006 10:50:36 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 152472

Good find, John. Thanks.

To: John Hayman who wrote (144335)	8/15/2006 12:02:14 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

John, re: "Standards Blog are those of Andy Updegrove" Apppears to be a timely / interesting site. Is there a link? Thanks- jim

To: John Hayman who wrote (144335)	8/15/2006 12:06:37 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Qualcomm belatedly declared certain patents as essential after standards had been set and significant investments had already been made within the industry. John, a possible precedent that would justify QUALCOMM's action can be found in the litigation surrounding a patent obtained by Unocal for a process to make reformulated, low pollution gasoline. Unocal did not assert its patent rights until AFTER the state of California had adopted a standard for low pollution gasoline that would effectively require refiners to use the Unocal patented process. Among the oil companies that cried foul, Exxon claimed that the patent need not be observed because Unocal deliberately influenced the state of California to adopted a standard that would help Unocal. Exxon also claimed the patent was invalid and lost on all its arguments before the patent court and before the FTC. Exxon also lost on appeal, following which the Federal Government adopted more relaxed fuel pollution standards that would not make the Unocal patent (now held by Chevron) essential. There was also a well publicized case where the inventor of variable speed windshield wipers did not assert his patent immediately, but eventually forced the big 3 automakers to pay for the use of his design. These earlier cases argue strongly in favor of the actions now being taken by QUALCOMM to preserve its intellectual property rights. I think QUALCOMM will be successful and am investing accordingly. Art

To: John Hayman who wrote (144335)	8/16/2006 11:20:57 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

Nokia is really nutsomania!! First, they form the GSM Slimeball Guild of Hagfish, from which QCOM is excluded [not being a GSM exponent]. They hold their meetings and come up with weirdo standards - GSM GPRS EDGE W-CDMA, and QCOM is supposed to know what's going on and is supposed to be bound by agreements in which they didn't participate. QCOM is supposed to "disclose" patents when they weren't in the standards discussions and were even told their intellectual property was of no value and was irrelevant and of course the GSM Guild could check out all the patents they liked and take as long as they liked doing it as they are all public record. <The link between these three stories is the fact that Nokia also claims that Qualcomm did not make timely disclosure of its patents, according to Bill Plummer, VP of External Affairs for Nokia, as quoted in RCR Wireless News: Qualcomm belatedly declared certain patents as essential after standards had been set and significant investments had already been made within the industry. Qualcomm violated its ETSI obligations by refusing to negotiate a FRAND license royalty for the use of declared essential IPR, but instead sought to exclude Nokia from using the IPR through court actions seeking injunctions and exclusionary relief.> It must be unpleasant to be Bill Plummer and have to make up some cock and bull story to pretend that a pig's ear is a silk purse. But I suppose that's the testing and training that "public relations" or "external affairs" people get. Can they lie with a straight face? Can they make up fantasy verbal realms with no attachment to reality? I suppose Bill has got a copy of QCOM's agreement to give away their intellectual property to the Slimeball Hagfish Guild to the SETI gang [Search for Extra-TDMA Intelligence] for no cost which he can show us. If he can't find a copy, could he explain how come QCOM seemed to want to charge for their other intellectual property but Nokia thought they'd be happy to give away a rope, made up into a noose, with which to hang QCOM's CDMA2000 business? Was Nokia not surprised by that idea when they started knowingly using the intellectual property? Or were they too busy tightening the noose? If some gang of bandits decides of their own volition to use somebody's property who isn't in the gang, without that person knowing, they can't really be surprised when that person objects to the illegal use and starts demanding payment when they find out about it. Can the Nokian's not remember the GSM Guild telling the world that QCOM intellectual property was not part of W-CDMA and I certainly never heard that it might be part of GSM and GPRS and EDGE? Court should be fun! Mqurice