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: carranza2 who wrote (144597)	8/28/2006 11:53:17 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

carranza, what's worth more to Qualcomm and Nokia, 5 percent of 1xEV-DO chipsets or 1 percent (or more) of WCDMA handsets? I think the dance is about the latter and the rest is dancehall decoration.

To: carranza2 who wrote (144597)	8/28/2006 12:41:04 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

C2, Re: QCOM GSM v NOK – non-assert gist – Thanks, I’m finally beginning to catch your drift (I think). The 3 year non-assert provision gave both parties time to “negotiate” further on matters not settled at the 2001 license extension signing, somewhat a half-way point between signing and expiration date in 2007. In essence- + the Q agreed not to hold the 2001 extension up on the matter of consideration for standalone GSM products and as such “unofficially” gave NOK a non royalty bearing right to sell such w/o specific mention in the agreement. + NOK originally stated they believed their license covered such, which it did although perhaps only by verbal understanding with nothing formal being written in the contract other than perhaps an NDA of confidentially not to reveal any details of their verbal “agreements” + NOK thus back-tracked on their original statement believing the contract included standalone GSM products perhaps for a couple of reasons- ...1. Perhaps the NDA ...2. The embarrassment to publicly reveal that it signed a contract that did not include standalone GSM products, thus subjecting itself to later infringement claims / legal action / damages/ royalties and other consideration payable to the Q. And as you stated, Qualcomm was willing to continue negotiations on this and other issues pertaining to the new license due in 2007, until realization that (Q Nov ’05 PR ) . "Until recently, we had been led to believe that these issues might be resolved cooperatively and amicably. However, it now appears that a cooperative resolution of these issues is quite unlikely and we must move forward with the litigation in order to protect our rights and to get these issues resolved." As evidenced by various NOK engineered maneuverings - + NOK6 instigated EC action + NOK Kyocera action + BRCM action + Various world wide PR blitzes orchestrated against CDMA / Qualcomm Glad you (and other board legal pros) aren’t ringing up billable units over these interesting discussions