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 (145872)	10/24/2006 6:09:19 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

reference was made to rulings by the Arbitrator, to the effect that Nokia`s Estoppel Defense(claiming Qualcomm`s sandbagging misconduct during the 2001 license negotiations by failing to disclose it had certain GSM patents), and Qualcomm`s right to assert its GSM patents against Nokia, are both arbitrable. I wasnt particularly happy to read that either. Any ideas on what can come out of that type of arbitration or how long it would take? It seems beyond clear that Nokia's GSM products werent covered by the agreement, so what else could they rule on? Slacker

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (145872)	10/24/2006 6:25:30 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Well, the ruling by the Federal Circuit directs Judge Rudi to determine arbitrability; if he finds it, his ruling does not affect the non-arbitrability of the ITC case nor, potentially, of the UK case. Scoring is still 1-0 in Q's favor since Rudi's decision is up in the air; I presume a finding of arbitrability by him will put the arbitrator out of business. Thus, two more decisions to be made--Rudi's and the UK judge's. PS: Everyybody had better stop using footnotes. This guy really doesn't like them.