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: carranza2 who wrote (62099)	4/5/2007 6:04:40 PM
From: BDAZZ	Respond to of 197244

>>I am afraid you are the infringer, Mq.<< OR go back to BDAZZ Oct 5, 2006 for the original: When pressed further the Nokia executive stated: "Hey, it's like this. Last year I was eating a lot of BREAD, maybe a loaf a week and it cost $2 a loaf. But this year I cut back to only a half a loaf, so I should only have to pay $1, right? Well I told this to the manager and he said that the loaf cost $2. Well, not for me. I pay what I want. If they don't like it then I just steal it. End result, I've been stealing the BREAD for the last year. But it's their own fault. I wouldn't steal it if they let me set my own price." Message 22879575

To: carranza2 who wrote (62099)	4/5/2007 6:27:17 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 197244

Judging by the times of the postings, QUALCOMM must have beaten me to it anyway because the SI post was only a little after mine, so QCOM must have written it the day before, or a lot earlier. Anyway, copyright is different from a patent. Mine is a copyright claim. Your client made some trivial comment about shoplifting, which if patented might be a blocking patent to my invention. That's irrelevant to copyright. But I defer to QUALCOMM because they must have beaten me to it and mine would be plagiarism if I had seen their's first. The payment by Nokia [if they actually make it, which might or might not happen] is a significant amount and they would hope that a court would see it as a reasonable attempt to make good on a bad situation, showing good faith, and the treble damages would probably apply only to the outstanding amount finally established as a FRANDly rate [if that ever happens]. A reasonable man, or even an unreasonable woman, would think it not a good thing for QCOM and Nokia to stop producing what they are producing after years of relatively harmonious production and technological development with legions of people dependent on both [to some extent though all have alternative suppliers with some effort]. So in FAIRness if not RANDyness, Nokia has made a step in the right direction to matrimonial happiness with QUALCOMM. But they had better hurry because the wedding is set for 9 April, presumably Honolulu time if not NZ time. There is more needed than a $20 million dinner out. Nokia is intent on date rape rather than marriage by the look of it. They think a dinner out entitles them to the full enchilada so to speak. Looks like a shotgun wedding is needed. There are already lots of children running around and more on the way. So, what's it to be Mr Nokia, rape, pillage and plunder, with the whole world watching, and Uncle Sam unamused, nuclear-powered shotgun at the ready, or a decent marriage? We'll be waiting at the altar on Easter Monday. I recommend a resurrection of the old agreement. A renewal of vows. Eternal bliss. Peace, light, harmony, happiness, health, prosperity, longevity, fun and love. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. I learned decades ago, when Texaco lost their shirt, and in other instances, that messing with Uncle Sam's daughters in a rapacious way is not a good call. It leads to corporate dismemberment, financial loss, ... well, lots of things, some quite unpleasant. Think of Saddam's final moments and his capture. Mqurice