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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: voop who wrote (54953)	9/1/2006 9:13:28 PM
From: LarsA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196959

voop, "what is the legal meaning of fair?" This guy thinks a certain Delaware Court is Asked to Define "FRAND" consortiuminfo.org I´m kinda surprised by the limited geographical reach the decision will have - this will take for ever? Lars

To: voop who wrote (54953)	9/1/2006 9:20:17 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 196959

5% has got to be reasonable compared with 16%. So I don't believe there is the slightest possibility that the actual amount of money charged is unreasonable. Non-discriminatory must mean people without a y-chromosome, a good melanin supply, hagfish, slimeballs, religious cranks and all comers are allowed a licence; an EEO position. Fair must mean girls, gays, enemy companies and hagfish, are treated equitably but it seems redundant when non-discriminatory is included. I suppose discriminatory might mean no licence at all, whereas unfair would mean a slimeball hagfish pays more than a good looking pleasant and friendly lady might negotiate. So, a like for like position. Which doesn't mean a company which also buys ASICs can't get a discount. The Koreans whined like a fleet of 747s about China's FRANDly licence, but when offered the same deal, [QCOM being vary fair], they decided not to take it. If QCOM refused Ericy a licence, that would be discriminatory. If they charged twice what they charge Nokia, that would be unfair. If they charged 32% instead of 5% that would be unreasonable. But 16% would still be reasonable because that's what GSM charges. Mqurice

To: voop who wrote (54953)	9/1/2006 10:12:00 PM
From: matherandlowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196959

"The only bone of contention with any meat left on it IMO is whether they are F and R" A FRAND royalty rate is any rate which two companies agree it is. Entering into a contract at a royalty rate acknowledges that the rate is FRAND. The fact that the Q has entered into many contracts for an undisclosed royalty rate makes each of those contracts FRAND in their own unique way. Each contract has to be unique because each company brings a unique set of opportunities and ways of paying Q for the use of their IP. Some pay IP rights, some pay new markets, some pay cash. Each contract is FRAND. j.