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 (59127)	1/26/2007 10:06:33 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 197360

That's the problem of writing posts in the middle of the night. I am not sure which post I meant to respond to. Mea culpa again. I just didn't want to offend anyone if I addressed a post to the wrong person beginning "you are not correct" (when I was responding to the question, "am I wrong") and offend someone who didn't ask the question that way. I think we have finally figured out the option to extend. Someone posited that infringement after April 9 might destroy the option. Unless there is a clause to that effect, I would kinda doubt it. By providing this gap between expiration of the license and the option to renew, the parties contemplated that there might be a gap and that NOK might infringe during the gap. Renewal would prevent an injunction but not damages. Assuming there are no specific contractual provisions addressing the issue, I would think the contract would be read that the parties contemplated the normal remedy of Qcom bringing a patent infringement suit for damages would be de rigeur or that the parties simply assumed that they would come to some agreement to "pay" for the interim period of time without litigation. If there is a renewal (even in late 2008) for, let's say, another 6 years, there will be some kind of accommodation; parties simply don't re-start their relationship with more litigation.