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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (61414)	3/23/2007 2:24:19 PM
From: SmallCapPM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197239

Will you please send this to QCOM management?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (61414)	3/23/2007 2:25:46 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 197239

Here's a jury which thinks 5.5% royalty for a phone call is very reasonable and is going to enforce their decision: biz.yahoo.com < A jury on March 8 found Vonage had infringed three patents owned by Verizon. The jury said Vonage must pay $58 million plus 5.5 percent royalties on future sales. "They could not have been commercially successful if they had not taken these patents we have and put them into their technologies," Dan Webb, an attorney for Verizon, said at Friday's hearing on the injunction request. > It is ridiculous that people are whining about QCOM's derisorily cheap royalties. I am not sure that the Vonage 5% is just on some enabling hardware either. Maybe it's 5% of phone calls. That would be nice for QCOM. Come to think of it, QCOM should change the royalty to 5% of revenue on calls, not 5% of the phone. That would be a lot of fun. Actually, even I think 5% of phone call revenue would be too high. People would stay with GSM. On the other hand, they might not. 5% isn't very much, even on call revenue. Credit card charges aren't much less than that and they take a cut on every transaction. Mqurice

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (61414)	3/24/2007 10:53:11 AM
From: Qgent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197239

That is precisely the issue addressed in the Exxon-Unocal case I discussed earlier. In fact, Unocal lobbied the California regulators to adopt a pollution standard that could be met by a patented process invented by Unocal, WITHOUT TELLING THEM that Unocal had a patent on the process. It is significant that Exxon lost at trial and before the appellate panel, and before the appellate court en banc, and finally before the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case and let stand the appellate affirmation of the lower court. My question is, was this standard created by a SSO that Unocal withheld disclosures from, or did they just tell the Regulators (you guys should use this standard)knowing they had legal patents in place? If the latter what disclosures did they really owe them? Qgent