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 (144629)	8/28/2006 11:23:12 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 152472

if they stick it to Nokia for "bad faith", they will then have to go after all of their other licensee's for GSM royalties. I think it would be pretty much impossible to only demand GSM royalties from Broadcom and Nokia and have it considered non-discrimatory. Good point. NOK may simply be a test case designed to set a precedent. It's also possible that the others are indeed licensed for GSM and Nokia was simply an aberration created by the fact that it denies the existence of Q's rights in GSM and has insisted on a better deal on that basis.

To: slacker711 who wrote (144629)	8/29/2006 12:20:56 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Qualcomm has already stated that they have offered the GSM IPR on FRAND'ly terms and their submittions to ETSI also indicate that they will abide by ETSI's IPR policy For 3G, not for legacy. After all ETSI was ensuring fairness before setting the standard. ETSI had no such leverage for the legacy standard. I think it would be pretty much impossible to only demand GSM royalties from Broadcom and Nokia and have it considered non-discrimatory. See: Message 21875581 Not conclusive, but I suspect it is accurate.