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 (144525)	8/25/2006 1:25:16 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

BTW in which ITC filing did you find that datapoint? Since I was looking at a copy saved on my hard drive, I tried to get away with being lazy <g>. It was from the file that Carranza originally linked. edisweb.usitc.gov but I think Qualcomm was still obligated to declare Essential IPR to ETSI ... in a "timely fashion" after becoming aware of such IPR. Assuming that Nokia is actually infringing, that is going to be the heart of the matter. I'm never going to believe that Qualcomm didnt know what was going into the various standards so really it comes down to a question of what their obligations were. Slacker

To: rkral who wrote (144525)	8/25/2006 11:21:47 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

So QCOM didn't know that Nokia was using their intellectual property and didn't assert their patents on the standard in question presumably and obviously because they didn't know they had to [or they'd have done so rather than risk losing a fortune] and Nokia didn't know they were using QCOM technology without permission. Once both parties realized what they had done and not done, they failed to come to an agreement on payment. If that's true, then it doesn't mean that Nokia gets a free pass and QCOM gets nothing. Regular patent payments would be the minimum required, back-dated to the use of the technology. Maybe no triple damages if Nok really was innocently using the technology in ignorance of what their agreement with QCOM actually said. It would be interesting to hear the defence on that. It's hard to believe it was other than bloody-mindedness and "trying it on". Mqurice