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: Maurice Winn who wrote (144560)	8/27/2006 8:15:36 AM
From: Randall Knight	Respond to of 152472

Wouldn't you rather eschew obfuscation?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (144560)	8/28/2006 2:33:00 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Thanks for the comments, Maurice. I'm not an expert in this area, that being, I'm not a patent attorney. I would think we might have some patent attorneys among those that occasionally post to this board. But note, it's tough to spend any time here & on one's investments if your time is continuously billable.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (144560)	8/28/2006 8:22:50 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Cutting to the chase scene... I am convinced that both NOK and Q knew all along about Q's IPR in the GSM family of standards, that the three year non-assert was intended to delay the incredibly difficult but inevitable problems of dealing with the issue until now, and that Q now intends to assert the IPR vigorously in response to Nokia's aggressive litigation stance. Because IMO the parties have known all along about Q's IPR claims [it is inconceivable that either was surprised to learn of its significance to the GSM family of standards], I consider the discussion about the ETSI IPR policy informative but ultimately of academic interest only as respects Nokia. The non-assert is key as it in my opinion establishes both of the parties' knowledge when the original agreement was signed. Thus, the timeliness and patent ambush issue is irrelevant as to Nokia. Otherwise, the non-assert would have never been a part of the 2001 license extension. Nokia's claim that it wished to buy "patent peace" in 2001 is laughable. Not only does the non-assert suggest otherwise but Rudi Brewer's opinion unequivocally states that the agreement was intended to cover CDMA products only. It is imperative to remember in discussing the issue that Nokia may very well have some EvDO IPR Q needs. The technical folks have not chimed in on this point but I hope they do as an accurate notion of what that IPR may be is essential to understanding the bigger picture.