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: Jim Mullens who wrote (144601)	8/28/2006 1:17:20 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

+ 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. I really doubt that this is how it played out. According to Nokia (and there should be records if this isnt the case), Qualcomm never brought up GSM licensing prior to the '01 agreement. edisweb.usitc.gov Yet, as of 2001, Qualcomm had never claimed to hold patents reading on GSM products (Nokia's or otherwise) nor had it (to Nokia's knowledge) claimed the licensing of any GSM patents to anyone, ever. Slacker

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (144601)	8/28/2006 2:35:41 PM
From: lml	Respond to of 152472

"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”" Jim, I wouldn't agree with you on this point. The facts on this issue are limited to the "4 corners" of the Agreement. Any verbal understandings are "off-the-court" under the Statute of Frauds, which provides that any contract which cannot be performed within a year's time must be in writing. So any "understanding" NOK had that is NOT in the WRITTEN Agreement (i.e., IPRs relating the stand alone standard) is outside the scope of inquiry. It is for this very reason that NOK is asserting equitable estoppel, which is an equitable defense. I don't think NOK has legal defenses available to it based upon (I think) what is stated (or not stated) in the Agreement. An applicable legal defense against Q's suit be fraud, to which I would respond, "OK, NOK, prove it." As we don't know what the Agreement specifically provides for, all we (@ least I) can go on, is what you knowledgeable guys can provide links to. All I've seen so far relating to this matter, is that Memorandum of Points & Authorities in support of NOK's motion to terminate the ITC investigation. Based upon what's stated in the Memo, I just don't get the impression NOK has a strong case. It's arguments are tenuous @ best. OTOH, ya never know how sophisticated the lawyers are in these matters. Very often, in the early stages of litigation (i.e. discovery, motion for summary judgment), opposing parties prefer not to reveal their hand to the other side. So, it's also possible that NOK has something up its sleeve that's not revealed (directly or indirectly) in the Memo we've seen. But then again, I really don't think Q is quaking in its boots, as I have to conclude they pretty much know the facts surrounding this dispute.