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: rkral who wrote (144414)	8/19/2006 5:22:15 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Disagree, Ron. There is a substantial difference between the obligations to disclose IPR imposed on parties who attended and participated by submitting technical proposals and those which did not. Q was specifically obligated to disclose as follows: Subject to Article 4.2 below, each MEMBER shall use its reasonable endeavours, in particular during the development of a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION where it participates, to inform ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs in a timely fashion. In particular, a MEMBER submitting a technical proposal for a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall, on a bona fide basis, draw the attention of ETSI to any of that MEMBER's IPR which might be ESSENTIAL if that proposal is adopted. Article 4.2 simply states that no patent searches are necessary. No one here has done the necessary work to correlate the specific groups within 3GGP to which Q sent representatives with the IPR it claims were incorporated into the standards developed by the specific group [and I'm not about to do that as I am not technically qualified]. No one here knows or is saying whether Q submitted technical proposals if it did attend, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it did not on any systematic basis. Until that correlation is done, the exact nature of its duty to disclose cannot be specifically determined as there appear to be different standards technically applicable to submitting and non-submitting members. Moreover, whether Q had representatives actually present at the various meetings is unknown as its people did not attend all of them. Please refer to the following Guide, specifically pp. 16-19, for the manner in which ETSI looks at the "reasonable endeavours" and timeliness requirements: etsi.org I frankly think all of this is a bunch of hogwash. If I were judging the issue, I would look to whether Q engaged in patent ambush regardless of all of the language used in the Guide through which any lawyer could drive a truck if he wanted, and in either direction. So far, it's hard to say for a fact but it doesn't look like Q has engaged in patent ambush as it promptly declared for UMTS, which encompasses GSM, EDGE and GPRS. Moreover, as new standards and developments were developed, it declared in '04 and '05. Seems timely to me, but like FRAND and "reasonable endeavours", the meaning of "timely" is not specifically nor objectively defined. It lack of precision is in theory intended to allow whoever is deciding to do the right thing, whatever that might be. But there is one fact that seems a bit off-putting, namely, that no one else is being asked to pay except Nokia. Is Q by its focus on Nokia trying to silence others from raising the timeliness issue? Maybe. Or is it simply that NOK's license is about to expire thanks to its insistence on a short term deal and it got in the gunsight first?

To: rkral who wrote (144414)	8/19/2006 7:29:52 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 152472

Qualcomm Europe S.A.R.L. ... ... based in Sophia Antipolis, France, near ETSI headquarters was created in order that QUALCOMM could participate in ETSI SMG. << My earlier link proves that Qualcomm -- via AFFILIATE Qualcomm Europe S.A.R.L. -- was an ETSI member at least as early as Sep 2000. >> QUALCOMM created and staffed QUALCOMM Europe S.A.R.L and joined ETSI in October or November 1997 shortly before the access modes of UMTS were balloted in January 19998. Within ETSI they spent virtually all of 1998 and the early part of 1999 exercising their right to withhold licensing of their undeclared (i.e. generally declared but not specifically declared) CDMA IPR unless an evolving set of conditions were met before agreeing to abide by ETSI and ITU IPR Policy by mid-1999. I believe their specific IPR declarations began in June 1999 but they may have made some earlier. Some excerpts from ETSI #24bis (Paris, 28-29 January 1998) when the primary and secondary UTRA modes were selected and the EC submitted its "Declaration on UMTS" IPR which forms the basis for the ECCC filing last November is here ... Message 21859419 - Eric -

To: rkral who wrote (144414)	8/20/2006 12:40:50 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Ron, I take your points, but technical paperwork aside, form and documentation in the right sequence, the intention of the disclosure business is so that people who are involved in the standards know what's going on, who owns what and what is necessary or essential to the standard. No ambushing allowed. No sneaky "behind the curtain" control of essentiality. Nokia knew all about QCOM's essential or otherwise patents. They were studying them, using them, disputing their applicability to W-CDMA, let alone GSM, GPRS and EDGE. Nokia couldn't possibly plead more than a technicality on "disclosure". I bet they knew very well what patents QCOM had that were relevant and what wasn't relevant. C2 seems to have done a pretty good dredging through the murk. Mqurice