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: slacker711 who wrote (144533)	8/26/2006 2:12:45 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"What we would need to find is the IPR policy prior to revision (or even better, all of its various revisions over the last 7 years or so). No luck on my part thus far...." While it would be helpful to see prior revisions of ETSI's IPR policy, the fact that the latest revision to the Policy addresses the very issue being debated, whether Q had an obligation to inform the ETSI of its essential IPRs even though it was not a participant in the development committee/working group for GSM/GPRS/EDGE standard, suggests that prior versions of the Policy was silent on this issue. For all we know, this issue was addressed in the latest revision as a direct result of the discovery that Q's essential IPR was part of the GSM/GPRS/EDGE standard. Seems to me that since Q sued NOK on 11/4/2005 on this matter, the latest revision to the ETSI Policy is likely an effect rather than a cause of the litigation.

To: slacker711 who wrote (144533)	8/26/2006 7:10:44 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I remember seeing the policy immediately before the revision in a comparison of the two. Didn't note as it appeared to be essentially similar to the revision. In other words, loose language intentionally designed to allow for judgment in the specific case. The non-assert seems to be key as Q is not going after anyone but Nokia. Thus, timeliness of the declarations is irrelevant as to everyone except Nokia. Since Q was bound by the non-assert, any declarations would be irrelevant as to Nokia. Can you imagine Q trying to assert now against anyone other than Nokia, after saying it wouldn't? I cannot imaagine that ETSI or any court would cry foul at private arrangements such as the one between Q and NOK, particularly as there is next to no doubt that Q notified Nokia some time before the non-assert expired. Nokia undoubtedly had actual notice, declarations and their timelines be damned.

To: slacker711 who wrote (144533)	8/26/2006 11:35:18 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"What we would need to find is the IPR policy prior to revision ..." Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the ETSI IPR Policy: Effective from 22 November 2000 until 23 November 2005: "4 Disclosure of IPRs 4.1 Each MEMBER shall use its reasonable endeavours to timely inform ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs it becomes aware of. 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. 4.2 The obligations pursuant to Clause 4.1 above do however not imply any obligation on MEMBERS to conduct IPR searches." etsi.org (pg 16) Effective 23 November 2005: "4 Disclosure of IPRs 4.1 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. 4.2 The obligations pursuant to Clause 4.1 above do however not imply any obligation on MEMBERS to conduct IPR searches." etsi.org (pg 1) Only the first sentence of Article 4.1 changed and, like carranza said, they "appear to be essentially similar".