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 (61122)	3/19/2007 10:38:50 AM
From: blimfark	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197003

CFO was just on Bloomberg radio as well. I caught the last minute or two where the interviewer asked about the most recent event. The CFO repeated the view of Nokia that some of the patents are "fully paid" (?) and that the Q holds less "essential" IPR in the "new world" than Nokia and therefore NOK deserves a better rate. They are playing the PR very heavily today. I expect a lot more to come.

To: rkral who wrote (61122)	3/19/2007 11:06:29 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197003

Headquartered Close to Capital Markets << Interesting that CFO Rick Simonson just happened to be in New York on the day of Nokia's announcement about their new lawsuits based on "patent exhaustion." >> It's not far from Rick's White Plains office to Manhattan. - Eric -

To: rkral who wrote (61122)	3/19/2007 6:38:00 PM
From: H. Bradley Toland, Jr.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197003

Thanks for posting the link. Since I'm a QCOM long--for a long time--I am biased against-or at least highly skeptical of Nokia's arguments as I think they just want to get a lower royalty than everyone else. So... I watched the interview and FWIW I don't think he sounded all that confident or firm in his argument. But he is the CFO so the patent matters are outside his real expertise. At one point he inferred that WCDMA was (and these are my words) different technology and not really invented by QCOM. My view is CDMA is CDMA and changing the channel width does not constitute a 'new invention'. Further, Eric's point seems to be that the right to use early patents may be all they need. This may be true for voice--I don't have enough knowledge to say one way or the other. However, when it comes to transmission of data--like HSDPA and HSUPA--I believe QCOM has a very strong patent position and those patents are of course more recent. I believe Nokia will need these unless they plan to sell WCDMA 'lite'. Eric, can you help out on this question?