SI
SI
discoversearch

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: rkral who wrote (54966)9/2/2006 12:26:51 PM
From: carranza2  Respond to of 196959
 
ETSI is a European entity (maybe a legal entity of France) ... so how do U.S. courts have jurisdiction in the first place?

I don't know exactly how it is that ETSI was created but my impression is that it is part of a worldwide agreement under which responsibility for developing standards--any kind of standards--is assigned to different groups. Don't hold me to this as I have studied the issue very briefly, but I believe the ITU is the umbrella organization which may have delegated the responsibility for UMTS and the GSM family of standards to ETSI and 3GGP.

In any event, as a condition of being allowed to participate in ETSI, and consequently enjoy the considerable benefit of having their IPR incorporated into the standards which are developed, all members have to make a commitment to license the IPR used in the standards developed under the ETSI and 3GGP umbrella in an FRANDLy way. This commitment is the equivalent of a contract enforceable in a court of law as I don't think ETSI or 3GGP or any other standards setting organization for that matter have any enforcement mechanisms. Anywhere a court can hear a FRAND dispute is generally a good forum for it [this is a very broad statement full of holes and exceptions, but good enough for here]. Since both NOK and Q do business in the US, our courts can deal with the problem.