SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (144420)8/21/2006 3:56:55 PM
From: matherandlowell  Respond to of 152472
 
"Are you proposing QCOM counter with "Your honor, Nokia knew we had relevant IPR even we didn't know it and/or didn't declare it?"

How about:

"Your honor, Nokia knew we had relevant IPR even though we didn't know they were using it (because we weren't part of that standard and we didn't give them permission) and we didn't declare it (because we had previously declared it for other standards and Nokia knew it was ours)."

j.



To: rkral who wrote (144420)8/22/2006 12:07:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
<Was Nokia supposed to offer to pay for use of QCOM IPR that QCOM hadn't even declared to ETSI? > Yes. That seems a reasonable thing to do.

The "declaration" business seems overblown and pedantic. If Nokia knew it was QCOM property, then that's about all they needed - a declaration wouldn't have added knowledge for them.

Mqurice