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: carranza2 who wrote (54634)	8/17/2006 7:20:15 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196444

C2,Talksfree,Jeff, Re: QCOM / GSM IPR v NOK, and “Is all this clear as mud?” Yes, clear as mud except the Bottom line which is perfectly clear>>> “: *Nokia basically has admitted it infringed* , IMO. It's basically now an issue of whether Q did the right thing by not disclosing, and it looks like it did, at least according to Ron's research on the ETSI rules. The rest will just be details and the impact of Q's failure to disclose.” And, as such NOK has continued its irrational behavior wrt Qualcomm / CDMA, a “suicide” pact so to say. Should this latest action be so difficult to understand given its prior misgivings? - 1. CDMA will never work 2. When that was proven wrong- We invented CDMA 3. Then- we’ll soon have 25% market share in CDMA w/o using Qualcomm ICs because they’re to expensive, yet we went out of business because we couldn’t compete with our own supposed lower cost solution. 4. Then- we’re scraping CDMA R&D / manufacture because it’s going nowhere / doesn’t fit our business model (i.e.- sweet heart / volume deals / choking the competition) 5. Then- we’re actually going to sell NOK branded CDMA handsets in selected markets using ODMs (which use Q’s chipsets even they’re too expensive) 6. Our Q license includes use of GSM IPR 7. Then- maybe it does / maybe it doesn’t include GSM IPR, but whatever, the license we thought we had but now we probably don’t because they offered us a new one but on unFRANDly terms. 8. And, then there’s the memo to Bill Gates from Oilla stating EV-DO was a fraud. Re: Talksfree and “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 . Shoot, Jeffrey, you stole my thunder with your timely post (Must admit you stated it much better). I was going to counter that probably next to official court / regulatory filings, the companies PR statements are likely the most official documents issued by a company as they are intended to express the companies official public position and should therefore be well researched and edited before release. And, as such, PRs should have more bearing than perhaps verbal “off-the-cuff” statements by the CEO. Jeffrey, Thanks also for>>>>> “Nokia has asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to define and enforce Qualcomm`s obligation to license its essential GSM and UMTS IPR in conformity with FRAND principles. A condition precedent to that obligation is the existence of such IPR. As the Delaware litigation is not a patent suit, the existence of IPR subject to FRAND terms must have been implicitly conceded.” Sounds like you hit the nail dead center on that one also.

To: carranza2 who wrote (54634)	8/17/2006 9:54:33 PM
From: GO*QCOM	Respond to of 196444

The more mud the closer to settlement or sediment.

To: carranza2 who wrote (54634)	8/18/2006 2:17:47 PM
From: DanD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196444

The thing I don't get is -- Disclose what? Were the patents registered with patent offices? Patents are public. Right? Isn't it up to users and competitors to do due diligence? It seems to me that is one of the functions of a standards body: go out and find existing patents that might be "essential" to the standard. I know I am saying nothing new, and I am sorry to take the board’s time with my drivel, but I am very confused by all of this. In my book a patent is a patent is a patent. It is the basis of intellectual property ownership and the capitalism of ideas. I feel these arguments about timing and standards bodies unsettling, not just as a Q investor, but an assault on the very idea of intellectual property ownership. Dan D.