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: AlfaNut who wrote (146739)	12/1/2006 6:00:56 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

They don’t give a damn if QCOM is a net collector of royalties so long as they pay less overall than their direct (i.e. handset manufacturing) competitors do. If that is the case than the EU case should be a slam dunk. The Chinese competitors Qualcomm has enabled pay 7% while Nokia (and the other ex cabel crowd + Koreans) pay 5%. Aren't you saying a 2% difference is not enough for them to complete against Chinese imports? Maybe Nokia needs to look into other ways of improving their operational margins. They certainly seem to spend a lot on splashy marketing and handset design. How are Qualcomm royalties responsible for those costs?

To: AlfaNut who wrote (146739)	12/1/2006 6:41:11 PM
From: Q8tfreebe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Your argument is valid, but to me, the real issue here is the definition of "essential". Nokia defines essential as any IPR included in the standard. Over the last several years, they have managed to get an ashtray, a rear view mirror and some other (significant number) of bells and whistles forced into the standard and now are claiming the same or greater number of "essential" patents as Qualcomm. It should be clear to anyone following the industry that Nokia's strategy from the start was to circumvent QCOM's CDMA IPR by 1) colluding with the Euronuts to mandate a different standard which at the time was imature and somewhat half baked, 2) take a very short license from QCOM and then 3) over the course of the next few years try to further define that standard with as many of their "essential bells and whistles" as possible in order to 4) renegotiate the license agreement with QCOM with some degree of leverage. However, lets all not loose sight of the fact that the engine, drive train, transmission, brakes, suspension system and steering mechanism are, and have always been, governed by QCOM IPR. Bottom line, I think we need a finer definition of "essential IPR" and we need to keep a little historical perspective cast over the debate to ensure Nokia doesn't get away with it.