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: Dibbs who wrote (59595)	2/1/2007 8:37:22 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197732

Very interesting. Although it comes to the conclusion from a different angle, it supports my belief that the case should have never been filed. The point about SSOs setting the patent and royalty structure before approving future standards has huge implications not just for Q but for the entire tech industry.

To: Dibbs who wrote (59595)	2/1/2007 9:36:23 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 197732

there was a patent pool put together for H.264 i wonder what the commitment was from those companies in research design etc which contributed to the patent pool. does the money qcom spend on research far out weight the risk and investment for break through tech and the pool takes a safer approach, less investment. does the qcom technology jump ahead of what the pool has to offer. many times industry will work together as pool to establish a new guideline, approach etc. However, the total commitment is questionable as to what each corporation gives in talent and money to the pool.

To: Dibbs who wrote (59595)	2/1/2007 12:39:52 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197732

Qualcomm and Nokia to seek relationship guidanceRelate on standby By Bill Ray Published Tuesday 9th January 2007 14:03 GMT Cross-licensing negotiations between Qualcomm and Nokia have broken down to the point that arbitration might be necessary to get the parties together before their current agreement expires in April. In an interview with Reuters, Qualcomm chief executive Paul Jacobs said the idea of bringing in an arbitrator had been discussed as "We aren't making much progress on the substantive issues." Qualcomm makes much of its money from technology licensing; the ownership of key technologies used in CDMA networks has been important to the company, though as networks migrate to 3G and beyond that will be a less reliable revenue generator. While it does own some property in W-CDMA (3G GSM technology) it is not as significant as the virtual monopoly it has had with CDMA. Frequently accused of manipulating standards to incorporate its technology, Qualcomm has spent an enormous amount on research and development to ensure ownership of intellectual property in a wide range of wireless standards. The whole wireless business is a nightmare of cross-licensing and patent concerns, with each company firmly convinced their IP is worth more than anyone else’s, so the fact that this agreement has stalled is unsurprising. Escalation of the spat should prove interesting as it might mean we’ll get to see who is licensing what, though the amounts paid are generally confidential.® theregister.co.uk THIS WAS LINKED FROM THE SAME UK PUBLISHER, THE REGISTER, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STORY POSTED IN PRIOR POST; I POSTED IT TO SHOW THE EUROPEAN VIEW THEY THINK QCOM MANIPULATES THE STANDARDS TO INCLUDE ITS IPR.