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: JGoren who wrote (59098)	1/25/2007 9:51:50 PM
From: BDAZZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197351

>>NOK has an option to renew the license on the same terms that expires at the end of 2008. That gave NOK the ability to see if it could do without Qcom but the assurance that it could jump back on the boat within a year and 8 months. There is no royalty due between April 10, 2007 and the end of 2008. But, NOK can't infringe during that period of time.<< This makes the most sense. I just don't see QCOM agreeing to the option clause the way some here claim.

To: JGoren who wrote (59098)	1/25/2007 11:37:09 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197351

Can Nokia continue to sell CDMA phones acquired through ODM's after the April deadline? If that is not considered an infringement, why can't they do the same thing for UMTS phones with Q or TI chipsets? In both cases, the ODM would be responsible for royalty payments. In these cases, aren't they undertaking a similar rebranding exercise as that of Vodafone or Telstra? The fine line between a licenced ODM and an unlicenced phone provider has never been really clear to me. There must be some sort of wholesale/retail boundaries defined in licences. Does anyone recall any phone wholesalers today operating in this mode?