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 (145880)	10/24/2006 6:41:21 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

I don't think Rudi will allow another NOK appeal of arbitrability. I wouldn't if I were the judge; they've had their shot. So mandamus is likely their sole remedy. Good luck to NOK with that as they will need it. En banc? Nah, not good for Q because of the uncertainty and the delay. Better to let Rudi rule. Mootness? No way! The ITC is going forward, we know the UK guy hasn't ruled. And even if Rudi sends his case to arbitration, which I firmly believe is not likely to happen, especially after today's ITC ruling, arbitration is not anything to sneeze at. An arbitrator could rule in Q's behalf, which I think is likely given NOK's recent admissions about needing a GSM license. This is something we all need to remember as the legal mill churns--Nokia has admitted it needs a GSM license. And another thing we need to remember is that the ITC judge very clearly said that the chump/estoppel defense is not backed up by facts, so it is likely to disappear like a lot of NOK's VW 40. Also not to be forgotten is the fact that Q needs Nokia's IPR but is not infringing like NOK seems to be doing as we speak. This is nice stick for Q to carry. All in all, I'd say Q is looking good on the legal front vis-a-vis NOK and BRCM, though there has been very little noise recently on the POS EU claim.