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 (144612)	8/28/2006 4:05:04 PM
From: BDAZZ	Respond to of 152472

>>here is the correct one << Good find. This should re-fuel the thread for sometime to come. Slacker Quickly found the meat filing. If the following holds true it looks like is game over for Nokia. Can anyone see any wiggle room? >>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.<<

To: slacker711 who wrote (144612)	8/28/2006 6:10:28 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Now that is a good brief--even when my own bias is considered. It is clear, credible, chock full of references to original documents [unlike NOK's brief which looks like a last minute effort on which the writer didn't think corroboration matters], and is very convincing. It graciously but directly calls NOK a liar by disputing the specifics of the negotiations. It also takes NOK to task for the "full patent peace" BS forcefully and with citations to the actual agreement rather than the unsupported assertions used by NOK but does so subtly yet in a manner which cannot be missed. This of course was completely predictable and perhaps the biggest blunder in the NOK brief which I could see. There may have been more but the briefs are redacted so who knows. Most important, it directly contradicts by reference to the specifics of the agreement any notion that NOK is entitled to rely on "I'm a stupid chump and Q took advantage of me" defense it is seeking to establish through estoppel. Besides, estoppel as a defense is not favored, kind of a loser's refuge, something applied to unsuspecting widow's and orphans who've been legally cheated, not a sophisticated multi-billion IPR powerhouse like NOK dealing with bijillions of dollars. Point. Set. Match? Perhaps so on the GSM IPR argument. Certainly not on the claim that NOK may have EvDO IPR. When litigants cannot rely on law, on contracts, or on the facts, they resort to mud slinging. I suspect this will be the next step--expect something quite nasty to crop up. Perhaps the mud carrier will be shameless BRCM. We'll see.

To: slacker711 who wrote (144612)	8/29/2006 12:26:10 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

That was a fun read Slacker. No need to read the Nokia side of it. Game set and match to QCOM. It's easy being a judge and deciding complex legal matters. Kidding aside, it really doesn't read to me as though Nokia's side could be very good at all. Mqurice