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 (144478)	8/24/2006 7:52:13 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 152472

I think we are in agreement. The Guide is designed to allow anyone judging the issue to take a very pragmatic, commonsensical approach. The Guide's is wide enough to drive trucks through, thought I absolutely contend that the Guide's language shows a heightened declaration requirement if an IPR holder is a member of a standards group and submits technical proposals. As I don't believe Q made any technical submittals to the GSM family of sandards, it is unlikely that it will be subjected to this heightened level of scrutiny. This is the bottom line as far as I am concerned: 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. Message 22735660 In my estimation, patent ambush will be the key--will Q be found to have withheld declaring its IPR in order to obtain some sort of strategic or tactical advantage? In order to establish such a thing, Q's subjective intentions will have to be judged. In that regard, we have very little information. The two items we have point strongly in Q's favor: (1) Q's statements that the discussions with NOK on the point have been ongoing for a very long time and (2) and the lack of statements by Nokia suggesting that the issue is a very new, one which has just recently come into existence.

To: rkral who wrote (144478)	8/24/2006 4:25:02 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

If I may chime into this interesting discussion, with reference to revised Article 4.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy, which states: "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;" it's materially important to note the DATE on which such policy changes were endorsed by the ETSI, 11/23/05. So, my question, relating to the debate going on here re: Q's obligations to disclose essential IPRs to GSM/GPRS/EDGE standards, WHEN did Q's obligation arise? Certainly not prior to the change, as Q was not a "participant" under the old interpretation, when the GSM/GRPS/EDGE standards were developed. Obviously, the changes were made to remedy a situation with which ETSI members were not completely comfortable. Seems to me, given the date on which these changes took effect, & the date on which Q filed its actions relating to its IPRs in these standards, is sufficient "timely notice" of its IPRs . . . or am I missing something here?