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: LarsA who wrote (144507)	8/25/2006 9:58:27 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Lars, long, long ago, the use of CDMA patents ceased to be a matter of 'friends'. <You don't get many friends playing like that.> It's a bit like Islamic Jihad. There's no point in worrying about upsetting them. Their anger is already off the scale. Being "friendly" or agreeing to lie down with your throat exposed won't get them to play nicely and be the best of friends. They will just consider that a convenient opportunity to do what they want to do. Appeasing Adolf didn't stop him and Germany stomping off around Europe, murdering and stealing. The "Sword of Damocles" [I don't know the literary allusion, but think I understand the idea] was "installed" when QCOM was issued the patents. The sword includes cruise missiles, Predator drones and other military equipment if things turn really ugly. The GSM Guild was in trouble from the time QCOM came up with a better mousetrap and the GSM Guild didn't, until they stole QCOM technology in a $500 bn rip-off to keep their obsolete GSM/GPRS/EDGE ideas alive when the GSM mousetrap held off the far more sensible CDMA methods. I'm always happy to help with answers to your questions. Mqurice

To: LarsA who wrote (144507)	8/25/2006 10:14:10 AM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 152472

You don't get many friends playing like that. Qualcomm will never have many friends. It is simply the nature of an IP company. Still, it should be noted that the GSM litigation began after the antitrust complaints began. There have been plenty of lawsuits back and forth but I think that the antitrust complaint represented an escalation. Slacker

To: LarsA who wrote (144507)	8/25/2006 10:54:49 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 152472

Lars, Re: QCOM GSM v NOK and- “Nokia and Q had talks about this IPR long before, ” Agreed. As has been publicly stated, the NOK license extension has been on the negotiating table for quite some time. ”...How Q was able to install the sword is the issue, I guess.” I don’t believe it was a matter of Q installing the sword at all. It appears that- + NOK and the GSM folks simply needed a method to provide better data capabilities and other enhancements within GSM to make it technological competitive with the newer / more advanced CDMA2000 products. + NOK also being in the CDMA business recognized key elements in CDMA/ CDMA2000 that would serve their needs in extending the competitiveness of GSM via GPRS/ EDGE upgrades and simply “borrowed” a few of those techniques that just happened to reside in CDMA products. One would think that if there were alternatives other than those patented by the Q in CDMA, NOK would have used such, but apparently there weren’t as the Q stated >>>” . Nokia's GSM, GPRS and EDGE standards-compliant products unavoidably infringe QUALCOMM's patents* surrounding these inventions that have become essential to the GSM family of standards.”. So, apparently (conveniently) they just incorporated the Q’s CDMA IPR into the GSM family of standards. Questions / comments>>>> 1. We know the QCOM CDMA IPR patent dates from the UBS report, but do we know the dates when such Q IPR was officially incorporated in the GSM family of standards* and who (NOK ??) Officially inserted such? 2. Is the patent holder officially notified when its patents are incorporated into a standard, and if so when was the notification? 2.a. When did the Q know its IPR was incorporated into GSM, and is it required at that time (or anytime) to notify parties using such that they are doing so without a license agreement? Note- In NOK's case, use in GSM is not a license violation as long as the product is not a standalone GSM device. 2.b. When the Q first knew its IPR was incorporated into the GSM standard, IF required to notify those parties without a license to use such in a standalone GSM mode, did it do so in a timely manner? 2.c. if notice was given, was it subject to “good faith” negotiations re: NOK’s license extension? 2.d. if part of such NOK license extension negotiations, was the Q asking for added compensation for use in standalone GSM products or offering to forgive such in return for other meaningful items? + higher royalty rate + perpetual license term + complete 3rd party pass-thru rights + volume QCT ASIC buys + cessation of hostile acts / instigation of such (PRs, verbal disparagement of QCOM/ CDMA, etc) 3. Did NOK not realize its Q license (original & 2001 extension) excluded use of Q’s IPR in standalone GSM products? And, If it did not (would not publicly admit such a blunder), when did it come to realize such. 3.a. Did NOK know its Q license excluded standalone GSM products, and willfully incorporated Q’s CDMA developed IPR into the GSM standard?

To: LarsA who wrote (144507)	8/25/2006 11:57:06 AM
From: BDAZZ	Respond to of 152472

>>but Nokia and Q had talks about this IPR long before<< So this moots the board thread speculation of Nokia just now finding out about the IPR.