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: BDAZZ who wrote (144530)	8/25/2006 5:50:51 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

*re: "What weakens the article as ..."* Since Nokia has chosen an estoppel defense, I think that article is very pertinent. re: "QCOM disclosed the GSM IPR usage and has been in talks with Nokia for sometime over its license obligation." AFAICT a key factor in Nokia's estoppel defense is disclosure relative to the 2001 SULA, not to license negotiations "before the shooting started". re: "Also, in all of Nokia's counter charges they have not (to my knowledge) claimed patent ambush." "Patent ambush" seems like the layman's equivalent term for the estoppel defense to me, a layman. re: "Using IDCC as a case of Nokia's past MO ..." I wasn't following the industry at the time. Are you saying Nokia tried the estoppel defense in the IDCC case also?