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 (61611)	3/28/2007 11:28:12 AM
From: rkral	Respond to of 197341

It appears you meant to direct your post to Jim Mullens ... rather than me.

To: JGoren who wrote (61611)	3/28/2007 11:57:03 AM
From: BDAZZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197341

>>At any time before the end of 2008, NOK can say "King's X" and have the same deal it has now, while accruing royalty payments at the same rate for sales after April 9.<< I still read this as: Nokia does have an option to sign a new license with their current terms until the end of 2008, but exercising the option after April 9 does not excuse any sales during the infringement period. So Nokia had better be pooling triple royalties. Is there any statement that contradicts this interpretation?

To: JGoren who wrote (61611)	3/28/2007 12:48:10 PM
From: Dash of Reality	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197341

I don't believe that Nokia escapes this predicament unscathed as you indicate. However, you're the attorney here not I. NOK has the option to renew at the same terms. That is one reason it figures that it has a no-lose strategy to delay, engage in massive litigation, etc. At any time before the end of 2008, NOK can say "King's X" and have the same deal it has now, while accruing royalty payments at the same rate for sales after April 9. I would presume that the Q will file for an immediate injunction on or soon after April 9th. Because Nokia acknowledges the validity of Q's IP and willfully and intentionally continues to utilize them without compensation I believe that opens them up to punitive damages as well. The option to renew the existing contract retroactively does not absolve them of the punitive damages. The possibility of an injunction against their selling WCDMA products will most certainly damage their stock price. Perhaps this is too simplistic of an opinion, feel free to correct me. DoR

To: JGoren who wrote (61611)	3/28/2007 1:37:56 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197341

JGoren, re: NOK option thru 2008, and “NOK has the option to renew at the same terms. That is one reason it figures that it has a no-lose strategy to delay, engage in massive litigation, etc. At any time before the end of 2008, NOK can say "King's X" and have the same deal it has now, while accruing royalty payments at the same rate for sales after April 9.” As I see it, there are two separate NOK licenses on the table-- 1) A renegotiation of the current license signed in 2001 which expires this April. 2) An option thru 2008 to extend the current license signed in 2001 at “the same terms” as in that license. Those terms no doubt refer to the same royalty rate, however I believe that option includes other provisions such as a long term / perpetual license period. My read is that the terms that QCOM is proposing in the renegotiation of the current license (2001) may be, and probably is, substantially different than in the current license and may include- + A higher royalty rate + A royalty rate for GSM/GPRS/EDGE + Inclusion of a royalty free cross-license with 3rd party pass-thru rights to all of QCOM’s MSM partners. + Incorporation of OFDM, Mimo, UMB, etc + Provision for incentives with use of QCOM MSMs + ETC. Further, by not having a signed license (either via 1, or 2) with the Q after April 9, NOK will be in violation of the Q’s IPR and subject to Damages in addition to paying royalties.