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: slacker711 who wrote (59088)	1/25/2007 7:53:54 PM
From: sag	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197351

Who has said (and where) that Nokia can exercise their option to extend there 2001 license after said license has expired? Nokia doesn't want to extend, they want a lower rate deal, an extension doesn't make Qualcomms GSM/GPRS/EDGE infringement cases go away.

To: slacker711 who wrote (59088)	1/25/2007 9:46:38 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 197351

It's very complex, and I don't pretend to have the answers. However, I don't necessarily believe that the answer lies in Q's weak leverage. If it's leverage were indeed weak, I think we'd see other chinks in the armor, and I see none. Others with IPR equal or better than NOK's have signed royalty bearing licenses. Nokia was over a barrel, if you recall, in 2001 due to its lack of a WCDMA license at a time when infra, not handsets, was the issue. Nokia probably wanted an infra-only license, but Q may have successfully insisted on an infra and handset license, plus got what everyone believes is a royalty-free license from Nokia for the GSM IPR it needed. That's a very good result. Not one Q would get if its leverage was weak. I suspect NOK insisted on a short term license, arguing that it would - finally - work around Q's patents. I can see Q saying: "Sure, go ahead, but if you don't succeed, you'll have to sign up within a year for a longer term license at the current rate. And face an infringement action for the year during which you are working without a license." I think this is a plausible scenario, but there are so many. We really don't know squat.

To: slacker711 who wrote (59088)	1/26/2007 11:09:05 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 197351

Slacker, Re: QCOM / NOK 2001 License extension- no plausible explanation, and >>> "Absolutely agree....and it brings up some ugly questions about the strength of Qualcomm's bargaining position. The only way they should have agreed to this in '01 is if they were substantially weaker than any of us ever imagined." FWIW, I posted this sometime back>>>> NOK 2001 license- It’s difficult for me to remember all that was going on QCOM / CDMA wise in 2001, but I imagine it was tense then also. WCDMA was in its infancy with only 27 thousand handsets being sold, yet as the acknowledged world standard and successor to world dominant GSM, the Q’s future was based on continued development / deployment of WCDMA networks. No doubt, a long / drawn out legal battle with NOK at that time, with little entrenchment (sound footing) of WCDMA, would have likely driven the stake thru WCDMA soon after its long awaited birth. Given the above, NOK’s license was expanded to include all CDMA infra / handsets at apparently the same royalty rate, while the Q was granted rights to NOKs CDMA related and other patents including multi-mode GSM) IC’s, seemingly very favorable terms to the Q at that time. IMO, although painful as it now is, its is much better to fight the battle now with WCDMA firmly entrenched and HSDPA/ HSUPA not far behind, than to have fought it then with much less at stake by the GSM incumbents. IMO, the Q’s case is on much stronger footing now with the precedent setting 2001 NOK license encompassing WCDMA at the same royalty structure as originally agreed to for basic CDMA. If that WCDMA license was FRANDly to NOK then, knowing what NOK new then, and given the Q’s added essential (HSDPA/ HSUPA, etc) IPR enhancements, it should be even more FRANDly now. Also of significance but not written of in the press, NOK has acknowledged that- + GSM-GPRS/EDGE utilizes the Q’s IPR + NOK does not have a Q license to mfg/ sell such + As such, has since 2001 and currently is infringing on QCOM IPR. BTW should also mention- NOK back in 2001 waited until the last minute to sign that license .