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: slacker711 who wrote (61748)	3/30/2007 2:59:23 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197306

slacks - 1. NOK is never never going to pay Q one penny after April taking account of roylaties duly earned during the term. 2. NOK is never never going to settle with the Q. They will file suit after suit, obfuscate and delay at every opportunity leading to these cases taking years. 3. On the other hand NOK will try to get Q to pay them for use of NOKs IPR and my guess is that with Q's legal team defending, NOKs chances are very good. Fortunately Qs business can get on very well without NOK and my guess is that we can look froward to a few years of very good growth. BTW where is the TV? Best, L

To: slacker711 who wrote (61748)	3/30/2007 3:34:35 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197306

"If there was an explicit clause that voided the option due to Nokia infringing, Qualcomm would have stated that in an investor conference. They are only making the argument to the analysts because it is going to be dependent on getting a court to agree." I can imagine another possible scenario. The option is voided if Nokia infringes, but Qualcomm cannot explicitly say so because of non-disclosure. So Qualcomm makes statements, if any, that are vague like Nokia's "option could be compromised." (your presumed paraphrase of a Qualcomm reply to a Lehman analyst) For it's part, Nokia could care less that the option is voided because they have no intention of ever again paying a royalty rate as high as that of the current license ... and they are confident that a court imposed royalty rate will not be higher.