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: Eric L who wrote (54605)	8/16/2006 10:14:29 PM
From: voop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196527

I knew not that Darien CT had a claim on Sazeracs. Probably akin to Erickson claims on CDMA pre 1999 (ggg) The Nokia spokesperson spun it well as they are paid to do. But they still are chirping about FRAND and not the merits of the IPR..." 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. " The belated part is interesting and perhaps the crux of the matter as the IPR and Nokia's liberal use of it seems no longer in question. When in fact was notice given that certain of the patents that enabled GPRS/EDGE functionality were in fact in violation of their IPR? Did they provide written notice about it when it occurred? Did they offer to license it then and there? Did they save this card for a rainy day but appropriately safeguard their legal rights to the technology at the same time? Galatoroire's is alive and well and no waiting since few tourists. Commanders has yet to open but is rumored too this fall.

To: Eric L who wrote (54605)	8/16/2006 10:18:40 PM
From: rkral	Respond to of 196527

re: "Qualcomm violated its ETSI obligations by refusing to negotiate a FRAND license royalty for the use of declared essential IPR ..." -- Nokia spokesman Bill Plummer, VP for external affairs for Nokia in North America I haven't seen any evidence for that portion of Bill Plummer's statement. While it would be interesting to know, I suspect we will never hear any. Also, if a licensor and licensee each believe the terms it offers to the other are fair and reasonable and they don't agree, the licensor is not necessarily the one at fault.

To: Eric L who wrote (54605)	8/16/2006 10:32:11 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 196527

Here is a copy of Nokia's response to Q's ITC claims. Hopefully, this can put to rest the speculation that they are accepting Q's IPR claims....they use the word denies 110 times in the 23 page document. edisweb.usitc.gov Nokia denies it has engaged in acts of unfair competition or violated Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, and/or selling within the United States after importation any products that infringe, directly, contributorily, and/or by inducement, any valid claim of United States Patent Nos. 5,452,473 ("the '473 patent"), 5,590,408 ("the '408 patent"), 5,655,220 ("the '220 patent"), 5,576,767 ("the '767 patent"), 5,452,104 ("the '104 patent"), 6,453,182 B1 ("the '182 patent") (collectively the "Qualcomm Patents-In-Suit"). Nokia further denies that the patents are valid. Except as specifically admitted herein, Nokia denies all allegations of the Complaint, as supplemented.

To: Eric L who wrote (54605)	8/16/2006 11:50:06 PM
From: matherandlowell	Respond to of 196527

" They are not, however, in any way shape or fashion .... admitting that the IP QUALCOMM has declared to be essential to the GSM standards is in fact essential. That's two (sic) totally different animules and two different steps in a legal process." Eric, I'm not trying to any more of an a**hole than is my natural state but I respect your views and experience and am trying to understand your position. 2 quick questions: 1. Do you believe that the GSM organizations would willingly put QCOM patents into the GSM standard if they were not essential patents? 2. The idea of QCOM claiming the patents as essential too late seems to be something of a canard here. Clearly, they did not give permission for the patents to be used in the GMS family of standards. Here's my question: what valuable compensation did QCOM receive for the inclusion of their patents in the GSM family of standards? I think we can agree that no contract stands without compensation. I think we can agree that QCOM's IP has great value. What compensates QCOM for the unlicensed use of their(our) patents in competing technology? Again, I realize that you have much more experience in this field than I do. I'm only trying to understand your position. j.