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: limtex who wrote (61833)	4/2/2007 1:03:12 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197299

"I pity our poor thread that is going to get hung up on the minutia of every one of these cases as they come to light." I pity our poor thread that seems to be getting hung up in idle speculation.

To: limtex who wrote (61833)	4/2/2007 1:12:31 PM
From: bdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197299

<<There is one fundamental and unchanging fixed fact and that is that NOK will never never never pay Q one penny more after the current amounts due and accrued to whatever date in April.>> That is an outrageous statement with no supporting evidence other than your own pessimism. Even if Nokia succeeds in lowering its rate going forward in exchange for its "patent position", it is still going to pay more and more and more every year as a function of its handset sales. I can't agree or disagree with the rest of your post as its all speculation. As much as I'd like to be able to predict, there are too many unknowns for me to be anything other than agnostic as to how this will play out.

To: limtex who wrote (61833)	4/2/2007 1:37:33 PM
From: ihavenoidea	Respond to of 197299

There is one fundamental and unchanging fixed fact and that is that NOK will never never never pay Q one penny more after the current amounts due and accrued to whatever date in April. that's an interesting point. The same can be said for the Q, and the Q are in a much better negotiation position then they were the last time. I'm thinking that maybe it is payback time for Nok and Q is holding them up for a higher %. That would surely give reason for Nok to say its unfrandly. But its all conjecture. ihavenoidea.

To: limtex who wrote (61833)	4/2/2007 3:06:19 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197299

This game has always been about whether either side could get an injuction. Limtex, I don't believe that an injunction is the central issue here because that remedy generally is avoided by courts if other, less drastic remedies are available. The central issue remains the protection of intellectual property under the patent systems that prevail in various countries--for all parties, not just Nokia or BRCM. Nokia may have reason to believe it would prevail in Europe, but the information that I have (as mentioned a couple of weeks ago) suggests that even the EC would frown on Nokia's claims. As to how to resolve the apparent stalemate, one can only conjecture. But I doubt that Nokia likes the idea of intentionally infringing QCOM patents (irrespective of an injunction), simply because of the potential treble damages that QCOM would receive if a jury verdict in the U.S. went in favor of QCOM. I also believe that BRCM, given its recklessness in backdating options, would not get much encouragement from its board of directors to enter the market for wireless chips without first obtaining a license from QCOM. Tactically speaking, QCOM needs to remain steadfast (I avoid using the term "stay the course") in resisting offers that would compromise its patent rights. Art