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: rkral who wrote (59069)	1/25/2007 4:18:32 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 197346

Re: NOK license option extension, and >> "Not only that, at their [edit: Nokia's] request -- and think about this in terms of a FRAND commitment, of whether they really viewed it as not being in accordance with FRAND -- they obtained an option to be able to extend the exact same terms of that [edit: the 2001 license] agreement which they could exercise anytime to the end of '08" -- Steven Altman, London Analyst Day (1:15:25) investor.qualcomm.com <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< And, Altman on 1/25/2007 “...Nokia agreed to pay royalties on WCDMA at the same rate as they pay CDMA2000. They also insisted upon and received an option to extend that 2001 agreement beyond 2007. If Nokia does not exercise its options by the April deadline,...” Likely a misstatement by Altman at London Day, with yesterday’s comments correcting such. The BIG question is with Altman as the Pres, attorney, and no doubt extensively involved with the 2001 license---- how could that misread have happened which has lead to such confusion?????

To: rkral who wrote (59069)	1/25/2007 7:52:07 PM
From: quartersawyer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197346

I recommend listening to Steven Altman's presentation at the London Analyst Day. Phooey. Tales told by lawyers signifying next to nothing. If we navigate the important points of reference in all the statements, we wind up choking on the beach like stranded whales. Lupin: If I can interject, there seems to be some confusion: the 2008 date is the date by which they have to elect whether or not to exercise the extension. If they do elect to exercise the extension, it actually extends the agreement for a considerable period of time well beyond 2008. So it can't be used simply as a means to simply delay the action. In fact if they make this election it essentially moots the current dispute because they will have to re-up [?] to our agreement for a very considerable period of time. Q: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APRIL 9, 2007 AND THE END OF 2008? Altman: That's a level of detail that I can't get into today. I don't want to be too mysterious, but we're just not at liberty to talk down at that level.

To: rkral who wrote (59069)	1/26/2007 1:17:11 AM
From: BDAZZ	Respond to of 197346

>>they obtained an option to be able to extend the exact same terms of that [edit: 2001 license] agreement which they could exercise anytime to the end of '08"<< This says that Nokia has until the end of 2008 to exercise an option to extend their 2001 license. It does not say they can use QCOM IPR without a license. And would you think Jim looks foolish in this situation?

To: rkral who wrote (59069)	1/26/2007 9:44:13 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 197346

Rkral, re: NOK license option extension discussion, and >>> “Jim, instead of listening and comprehending, you have the option (pun intended) of continuing to look foolish. :-))” I guess I missed that flame the first time around, or did you insert that with the edit function before/ after downing your prune juice. : - )) ? Seems to me most of us ( 8 or more?) were having a constructive discussion re: this important but tangled issue which came to the forefront again with Harvey’s ;>) post highlighting Altman’s CC comments on same subject. Attempting to read all of the lawyerly comments ( those succinctly stated / those not / and those hinted at between the lines) leaves ample room for various interpretations. It appeared plausible to me (and several others) at first, that the option had to be exercised by April 07, however that does not now appear to be the case. And, much thanks to JGoren for taking the time away from his day job to dig further into this and offer what appears to be an excellent summary sorting this out, including the many complexities / questions surrounding this perplexing option extension conundrum.