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: pyslent who wrote (54627)	8/17/2006 2:47:22 PM
From: talksfree	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196451

Guys - You are splitting hairs that aren't worth splitting. A court is not going to take a PR statement that is ambiguous as an admission in a suit that is worth millions or billions. A court has clear guidelines on what is an "admission against interest" and this isn't it. It also has to be made by a person who has authority to bind the company, and a PR person doesn't have that type authority. Q will try to get it into evidence. Even if it is admissable, and I believe it isn't, it is only one "brick" in the building of the entire case and will be give only the weight a judge feels appropriate. In light of all the litigation on this matter, and Nokia's formal denials of liability, a press release that is ambiguous will be given little or no weight. Even if it is given some weight, it will be viewed in light of ALL the other evidence presented by Nokia, and therefore will get lost in the case.

To: pyslent who wrote (54627)	8/17/2006 3:44:16 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196451

Slacker / pyslent, re: Q’s GSM IPR v NOK Thanks for your thoughts>>> 1. (Slacker) “Nokia will never acknowledge Q's IPR in GSM. It would be absolute suicide for them to do so.” 2. (pyslent) “It is possible to interpret the above PR excerpt as saying that Qualcomm has a general FRAND agreement that covers any and all essential patents applicable to either GSM or UMTS. That would not be a concession that such essential patents exist. IMO, without an "its" in front of "intellectual property," there's room for interpretation either way. NOK’s PR. Nokia (NYSE: NOK ) announced today that it has filed a complaint against Qualcomm with the Delaware Court of Chancery in the U.S. Nokia is asking the Court to order Qualcomm to abide by its written contractual obligations to international standards setting organizations to license intellectual property essential to GSM and UMTS technology standards on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Absolute suicide or not, IMO (and several others) NOK’s actions / statements (#1 & #2 below), and the PR above clearly “acknowledge Q's (essential) IPR in GSM”. 1. NOK’s folks were initially (after ITC filing) quoted as “believing” their license with QCOM included GSM IPR.....”. Nokia had said it believed the patents in question were covered by a prior license agreement” Intrepretation of the above>>> + QCOM has essential GSM IPR, however we “believed the patents in question were covered by a prior license agreement” 2. A little later NOK claimed QCOM wasn’t being FRANDly ....”Plummer said. "We have received no offer from Qualcomm that was on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms." ” Intrepretation of the above>>> + We received an offer from the Q to license their essential GSM IPR, but “no offer from Qualcomm that was on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.". + IOWs, the terms of Q’s offer to license essential GSM IPR was unacceptable (royalty rate too high, not a free cross-license, included 3rd party pass-thru rights, etc, etc) Re: (pyslent)- “ IMO, without an "its"* in front of "intellectual property," there's room for interpretation either way.* LOL, who in the world do you believe that PR was referring to other than Qualcomm, the man in the moon??? I suppose NOK mentioned Qualcomm / essentiall / GSM just for the heck of it, just to give us something to debate. Further, I suppose they shrewdly wrote that PR so that it could be left to “ interpretation either way “ by the courts to present a “fair and balanced” reading. No reason to be overly aggressive against the Q, and emphatically state in the PR that >> “this by no means implies that we have infringed on Qualcomm’s GSM IPR (essential or not) intentionally or otherwise, or implies that we believe that Qualcomm may or may not have essential / non-essential GSM IPR that Qualcomm now claims”. Yup, better left to interpretation either way “ by the courts to present a “fair and balanced” reading. .....”asking the Court to order Qualcomm to abide by its written contractual obligations to international standards setting organizations to license intellectual property essential to GSM” .... One has to wonder who’s minding the store, and if their attorneys (“close friends”) / PR writers / checkers even understand English ? Yup, I guess as long as one can use “that depends of the meaning of it” , just about anything goes.