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 (61645)	3/29/2007 2:34:00 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197323

Re: legal impacts of "the option" Without having the benefit of the controlling contractual language, one cannot reach any reasonable conclusions as to its construction. Unless you`ve read the document, commentary on its effects is necessarily conjecture.

To: JGoren who wrote (61645)	3/29/2007 3:19:14 AM
From: lml	Respond to of 197323

If Nokia exercises the option at the last minute, then it would probably relate back to April 9 and there can be no punitive damages. At least, if I were NOK I would argue that, and I just don't think the courts will want to bother with punitive damages, because by the time they get to that, the option would be excercised. I generally agree. Treble damages would be unlikely. Q's damages would be the loss of royalty revenue stream from April 8 to the date NOK exercises its option AND begins to remit royalty payments. Q's damages should include accrued interest on lost revenues from the time they would have been rec'd but for NOK's delayed renewal of the contract. However, question is still presented as to whether NOK's actions constitute willful infringement regardless of the relation back. Court is still presented with the question whether NOK's cont'd open use of Q's IP w/o timely payment royalties following expiration constitutes willful infringement. I have to question whether the parties, when negotiating & eventually agreeing to the option provision, envisioned continual payment of royalties in event of NOK's non-renewal BUT cont'd use Q's IP. Obviously, I don't have copy of agreement, so I can't comment what may be inferred from the four corners of the agreement. But beyond its four corners I have to think a court would look at "course of performance" b/w the parties over the existing term of the agreement, which goes back 15 years. Would it not be reasonable to infer that non-renewal by NOK, but cont'd use of Q's IP, requires NOK to make cont'd royalty payments? Obviously, it's for the court to decide, should the parties not be able to negotiate a settlement that addresses damages in the event NOK's ultimately exercises its option to renew. My guess is that if NOK exercises it's option to renew, which would translate to victory for Q, the question of the amount of damages during the relation-back period will be of secondary importance to Q. JMO.