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: kech who wrote (145306)	10/2/2006 12:07:28 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I think it is simply a negotiating ploy. Nokia will argue that the rate should be lower because Nokia doesn't need the full set of Q's patents, one of which belongs to Snaptrack, because it now has Trimble IPR available to it. The suit in SD is based in part on NOK's alleged infringement of Snaptrack IPR. How valuable is Trimble as compared to Snaptrack? Who knows, I doubt seriously any traders today have any clue. But I think matherandlowell is right, the stock is simply reacting to the news. If Trimble's GPS IPR does in fact replace Q's, settlement will be more difficult because Q will not have Snaptrack IPR to trade in the negotiations.

To: kech who wrote (145306)	10/2/2006 12:51:05 PM
From: matherandlowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"How is it bad news that Nokia licenses GPS patents from Trimble? Q bought snaptrack and has its own GPS solution built into its handsets." Ketch, This is obviously the question of the hour. How bad is the news? Not to put too much of a paranoid spin on this, but I see a theme in the attacks on the Q. QCOM's official position has been that if you use one claim of one patent, you have bought the entire package. Broadcom is going to try to assert a claim of one of their patents is being used by QCOM. If they succeed, then a case could be made that QCOM must pay whatever BRCM requires for the use of that patent-- and it could be 5% of the wholesale price of the product, or even more. Similarly, Nokia may be betting that one of Trimble's patent claims has been violated by SnapTrack and Qualcomm. Trimble was a pioneering company in the field of GPS. It is not unlikely that SnapTrack has violated one claim of one patent. I'm starting to think that the Qualcomm policy of "one claim from one patent" pays the entire fare should be replaced with two options: 1. one claim from one patent pays the whole fare, and for the whole fare you get the entire basket of patents (this would be for existing licensees and held open as an alternative for future licensees), or 2. users of the CDMA patents from before 2002 pay 4% and must pay for each patent used on top of the CDMA patent portfolio. For companies like Nokia, a standard 4% deal would be in effect if they needed any pre 2002 patents and additional royalties would be due if it can be shown that they need any post 2002 patents. This patent policy would allow QCOM to haggle with individual companies who have a need or desire to haggle. Anyway, to get back to Ketch's question: how important are Trimble's GPS patents to QCOM? I think it is clear that no one knows and it will take years of litigation to find out. j.