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: Clarksterh who wrote (144637)	8/29/2006 8:24:51 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 152472

For 3G, not for legacy. After all ETSI was ensuring fairness before setting the standard. ETSI had no such leverage for the legacy standard. That is probably true in '01, but since then Qualcomm has declared their patents as essential to GSM GPRS and GERAN. In September '04, they amended 626 of their patent declarations to ETSI to indicate that they were applicable to the GSM and GPRS standards as well as 3GPP. In October of '05, they declared 18 patents also applicable to GERAN (EDGE). Quite a few of the GERAN patents are the ones now being contested. All of the above patent declarations have the following notation which indicates that Qualcomm will abide by clause 6.1 of the IPR policy.....which is the one that requires FRAND'ly terms for licenses. webapp.etsi.org The SIGNATORY and/or its AFFILIATES hereby declare that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy, in respect of the STANDARD, to the extent that the IPRs remain ESSENTIAL. Thanks for the link to the article. I had forgotten about it. The following quote from Lupin might be how Qualcomm will try and justify different rates. JMO, but I have a hard time seeing how charging Nokia and Broadcom a GSM royalty could be considered non-discriminatory unless they are giving less back to Qualcomm than other companies. I would guess that Lupin's quotes will play prominently in some of Nokia's filings. Of course, I assume Lupin understands Qualcomm's obligations far better than I ever will, so I assume/hope that I am missing something. Message 21875581 Nokia also contends that it would not have invested heavily in developing the WCDMA standard if it had known that Qualcomm would charge differential rates from it and its competitors. Lupin however defended his company’s rights to offer flexible rates to different manufacturers. “Being party to regulatory agreements does not mean that we are required to give the same deal to every company,” Lupin said, “as long as our demands are not unreasonable or unfair... We have the right to allow easier terms for companies with whom we may have other trade agreements, such as an exchange of patent rights.” Slacker