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 (144610)	8/28/2006 3:57:09 PM
From: BDAZZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>>Qualcomm's response to Nokia's request for a stay at the ITC.<< Slacker, the link is to Nokia's Aug 11 response. Is the QCOM recent response also included somewhere in the PDF?

To: slacker711 who wrote (144610)	8/28/2006 6:21:09 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Slacker, Re: QCOM GSM v NOK and your illuminating discovery In Qualcomm 8/23/2006 response>>> edisweb.usitc.gov “Nokia’s account of being misled is flatly contradicted by 0 6.1.1 of the CDMA Agreement, which expressly reserves QUALCOMM’s right to assert patents against Nokia’s non-CDMA products - including GSM products - after the expiration of the three-year non-assertion period.<< In now appears that NOK was officially put on notice (06.1.1 of the CDMA Agreement) that the Q had the right to “assert” it’s patents against NOK’s GSM products beginning in 2004. Thus- + In 2001 when GPRS was being designed, no doubt using the Q’s essential IPR, NOK was aware of such and knew of the possibility that the Q could demand some form of consideration for such. + It was detailed in the CDMA Agreement, not a verbal discussion, and in plain sight for NOK’s objection at that time if it was to be a deal breaker. The question remains, - + why would NOK agree to such a major element in that agreement given the difficulties encountered in the 2001 extension, and the prior history of disputes between the two companies? ...My only assumption is that NOK- .....+ was pressured to get the WCDMA license from the Q at that time, .....+ could not get the Q to remove the GSM IPR from consideration (a stalemate), .....+ thus compromising on a 3 year non-assert provision which bought them at least 3 more years to resolve that issue .....+ In the interim hoping their position would strengthen against the Q’s / the Q with IMJ’s pending retirement and new /less seasoned management the Q would be more “flexible” + why would their initial response to the press be –we believe our license covers the Q’s GSM IPR- when they knew full well it did not, and should have been prepared with a better response knowing the possibility for the Q to initiate this action ? + What additional conditions NOK now has to agree to avoid penalties / damages for knowlingly infringing on the Q’s GSM IPR since 2004? (assuming the non-assert precludes action during that 3 year period). ?