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: Q8tfreebe who wrote (147991)	1/25/2007 2:28:33 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Agree, I would expect the pleadings have been drafted. On April 10, if NOK has not extended, the infringement actions are likely to be filed. Remember, what PJ said, it was going to take an event to get NOK to back off. Despite its bravado, NOK is going to have crunch time in April. The issue is already joined in the case where NOK sought an injunction on the basis of FRAND. NOK will have to assess the true risk of an injunction against it. I still think NOK will go to the mat and force Qcom to bring the infringement action for injunction. NOK will figure that the litigation buys it time and it can "settle" at any time before the judge announces whether NOK will be enjoined. NOK probably reads true deadline as April, 2008. The question is: If NOK exercises its option in April, 2008, does that insulate itself from April 9, 2007? If it does, how can Qcom obtain an injunction until 2008; the issue is not ripe? Maybe that is part of the reason the judge required NOK first to admit that it will infringe specifically-identified patents before the court would hear NOK's request for an injunction against Qcom? That admission could work both ways. IF NOK does so, then the question of insulation would be answered in the negative and Qcom would be able to counter that NOK must be enjoined from selling products without a license. NOK wanted it a one-way street. That's why the judge's decision was so important.