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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quartersawyer who wrote (57692)	12/13/2006 2:09:48 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 196381

Chapq, Re: Geradin’s TILEC Disussion Paper- “... Some reflections on ex-ante licensing, FRAND, and the proper means to reward innovators” Thanks to Northforce- still trying to play catch-up / too much vacationing! Very timely / insightful paper, discussing many of the issues we’re thrashing out on these boards. Good to have this esteemed Euro professor / attorney representing the Q / our interests with his logical / common sense reasoning on these current events. Also, interesting to read all the recent posts from AlphaNut , C2, Northforce, Clarkster, mQ, etc. providing insightful conjecture on the Q’s various litigation issues with too much for me to absorb. I have to go along with Mq and the facts at hand and have to believe with the magnitude of the consequences of such decisions impacting world commerce / innovation / standards setting / valuing IPR-- the decision makers (if these issues ultimately go to court) will be pressured to come to logical / common sense findings. And the facts at hand (IMO) strongly support Qualcomm (even more so with Gradin’s paper). 1. QCOM has signed WCDMA licenses with 70(?) Companies. Those licenses were signed prior to, during, and after (as recently as this week) the WCDMA standard was approved. 2. The Q’s business model (The royalty rate / other terms) were know by all and remain virtually unchanged today despite NOK’s verbage to the contrary that times have changed since they originally licensed with the Q in the ’90 (and extended in 2001) .... That their WCDMA IPR position is much stronger, yet with apparently no royalty bearing licenses of significance to prove such. 3. If anything, the Q’s contributions to WCDMA have grown even stronger with HSDPA and HSUPA additions. 4. NOK / NOK6, claiming now that those terms in the original (and extended) license are now somehow unFRANDly just doesn’t hold water. 5. NOK6 (POS) now claiming antitrust abuses given their market dominance (#1 handset maker, #1 wireless chip company, #1 infra company) just doesn’t hold water. 6. NOK admission that GSM- GPRS/EDGE devices require essential QCOM IPR and further admit that they have been and currently infringe and are without and in need of a Q license for such. I’ve gotta believe that these strong precedents have to have enormous weight in any court.