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 (54645)	8/17/2006 9:32:58 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196446

C2 / Jeffrey, Re: QCOM /GSM IPR v NOK. Just wondering, in the eyes of the court, which is worse- 1) A party that against all reason denies an obvious fact- such as NOK’s apparent denial that Qualcomm has essential GSM IPR as some posters here appear to be claiming >>> “Nokia is now admitting that QUALCOMM does indeed have licensible IPR "essential to GSM..." >>>>>>> No. They are acknowledging that QUALCOMM is claiming that they have licensable GSM IP. They are not, however, in any way shape or fashion -- at least so far as we know, and it is highly unlikely they would do that, and nothing can be construed as such by reasonably intelligent human beings who are doing anything other than indulging wishful thinking -- admitting that the IP QUALCOMM has declared to be essential to the GSM standards is in fact essential.” or, 2) Admits to certain facts / transgressions- + QCOM has essential GSM IPR + Their products indeed use such IPR + They do not have a license to manufacture and sell such products with such IPR but uses the defense that they mistakenly thought their current license included such IPR, etc, etc? Jeffrey, I believe in a previous you alluded to a frivolous claim, and would not item #1 represent such? C2., Also wonder if the arbitration you mentioned in your prior post is the binding type? FWIW, I was involved in a legal hassle for over three year which was thankfully resolved in my favor via binding arbitration. The suing parties’ case was an entire fabrication (frivolous) , smoke screens everywhere, and thankfully the judge saw through it all. His attorney must have run up enormous billing units, but I wonder if she collected a dime as he filed bankruptcy shortly later and I also heard that he filed an action against her for losing the case (her first case).