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: JeffreyHF who wrote (144643)	8/29/2006 11:06:55 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 152472

Clark / Slacker / Jeffrey, Re: QCOM GSM v NOK- Great finds (should have recalled that article /quotes- must have read it ???) Slacker, re: “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.” Jeffrey, Re: “Does the concept require obtaining licenses from all who use your IPR, or does it simply mean that as to those whom you choose to license, the terms relative to each other must be non-discriminatory?” I guess it gets back to the definition of FRAND, which appears loosely defined if at all. What do the courts consider as “fair and reasonable”? Is it not “reasonable” to seek added consideration against one- + who willfully violates your IPR? + who instigates (& colludes with others to do same) frivolous legal actions? + who consistently misrepresents the truth in PRs and quotes in the media thus damaging the reputation of a company and harming its investors by such action depressing the stock price? Would it not be unfairly discriminatory to seek the same consideration from others who refrain from such actions as cited above?