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: rkral who wrote (145907)	10/26/2006 10:22:30 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 152472

I never could find text supporting the "Weinstein arbitration" in that ITC filing link you provided. See p. 3 of edisweb.usitc.gov "Notwithstanding the district court’s decision, on May 30, 2006, an arbitrator ruled that Nokia’s estoppel defense and Qualcomm’s right to assert its GSM patents against Nokia are subject to arbitration." The only reason I can thing of ... for court action and arbitration to take place in parallel is to expedite the final result. But that flies in the face of our theory that Nokia's intent is to delay, delay, delay. Having a parallel arbitration taking place while there are numerous ongoing cases in which the right to arbitrate is being hotly litigated seems very odd to me, but I am sure there is a good reason for it. If I wanted to delay, as I presume Nokia does, I would not have agreed to arbitrate in parallel until the right to do so is either established or rejected. On the other hand, Nokia admits that it is infringing; additional delay without a GSM license will cost it additional cash, so its motivations are mixed, at least in that sense. It is possible that NOK's primary motivation is to avoid a SD jury and minimize its exposure to a finding of infringement on Q's GSM IPR. If this is the case, it may very well be more interested in nailing down a license and resolving the GSM IPR case than in delaying matters. Since Q's interests also appear to lie in nailing down a mutual license and to resolve the GSM infringement case before its cross-license from NOK expires, it is also interested in not delaying. If this is the reality of things, parallel arbitration makes sense as it satisfies both parties' interests. NOK's posture with respect to arbitration as expressed in the ITC case and in the UK may simply be a desire to remain consistent in its legal position. The fact of the matter, however, is that we really do not know why the two parties agreee to arbitrate while fighting the right to do so. All we can do is speculate.