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 (62122)	4/6/2007 5:53:55 PM
From: blimfark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197017

Is this a bluff? "We don't believe we actually use their patents," said Lou Lupin, general counsel at Qualcomm. "It hasn't been an issue up until now but there's a serious question about whether in fact we use any of their patents. It's likely an issue that will be hard fought over the next months." It would be great if it were true. Perhaps it's just Q's way of saying to Nokia that they are going to need to prove every single claim. The statement makes me scratch my head. I don't believe that the Q doesn't know exactly what patents are in use.

To: slacker711 who wrote (62122)	4/6/2007 7:06:52 PM
From: manalagi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197017

Plummer called it a "good faith" payment* that demonstrates that Nokia is "trying to contribute to the ability for both parties to go forward."* What is the meaning of "good faith payment"? In layman's term it means just front money towards a larger sum. If you buy a car from a private party and you leave a deposit of $ 200 to hold, is that not a good faith money showing that you are serious and will be coming back with the balance? If Nokia is really offering an olive branch, it is the first to blink.

To: slacker711 who wrote (62122)	4/6/2007 9:05:14 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197017

slacks - this looks to me that since the issue of NOks patents has become sharply in focus Q has had its engineers start to look at whether in fact Q does use any of NOKs patents. It may not have been an issue on the past due to the cross licensing provisions. What this does is to focus on the difference between the relative improtance of Qs portfolio versus NOKs. This has been and must be the very heart of the issue. If it is true that one of the core patents has in fact expired and is paid up as NOK has maintained all along and that Q now accepts that the issue focuses on the remaining valid Q patents and is Q entitled to charge the same rate for those patents now that one of the (if not THE core w-ccdma patent) has become "paid up". This must be an issue to detailed patent law as well as the relative importance of these remaining Q patents. AND the relative importance of any NOK patents in W-cdma. The slides in the powerpoint presentation on the 2nd day of NOKs presentation late last year show that NOK has spent over 25bn Euro on R&D and has some 350 patents in w-cdma. But who knows how really important these patents are to the core of w-cdma. Presumably Qs legal team and its board know what they are doing. To embark on this process without having the strongest legal basis for doing so and the confidence in the strength and relative importance of their remaining valid patents would be absurd. NOKs only defence two fold, firstly that the main patent is paid up and sceondly that they now have a huge portfolio of extremely important w-cdma patents resutling from their spending of more in R&D than Q has earned in total revenues for the last several years ie we are a giant and Q is a minnow and our patents are more important than their patents. In other words believe it or not Q is now, at this stage, looking at whether in fact they do actually use any NOK patents. Q is comming at the the other way around and in my view that could be more optimistic for Q's position. The stakes have in fact been raised and in a way that NOK will not be happy about. Somone in Q who understands the technology and patent issues must have woken up one day this week and said " wait a minute, we don't actually use any of their patents" and Q is now looking into this in detail. This may be very good news. If Q can carry on clearly without using any NOK patents in Qs w-cdma products then I think this offers a totally different perpective on what happens after Monday. Best, L

To: slacker711 who wrote (62122)	4/6/2007 10:17:40 PM
From: bdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197017

<< . . . then they're in breach of our agreement and we're entitled to damages and we could terminate their rights to our patents forever," Lupin said.>> Now that would be an emotionally satisfying turn of events. Is this a real threat given the commitment to license all on a FRANDLY basis?

To: slacker711 who wrote (62122)	4/6/2007 11:09:01 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197017

Yay!!! Ban Nokia from any use of QUALCOMM patents. That would be a LOT of fun. I hope QCOM is ready to short NOK. <"If they continue to use our patents ... we believe there are obligations that come along with that. If they don't meet those, then they're in breach of our agreement and we're entitled to damages and we could terminate their rights to our patents forever," Lupin said. > I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall in Nokia's HQ over Easter. I guarantee the lights are on late each night if not all night. Their default setting of renewal must be looking very, very attractive. It will save Nokia from the gumboot business and avoid an INCREASED royalty rate plus huge upfront fees sufficient to compensate for the totally unnecessary legal fees inflicted by Nokia. Nokia's position is simply too confused, irrational and generally all over the map, with little but a petulant whine to sustain it. Nokia's current management is obviously a pale imitation of their 1990s management and early 21st century. I predict a resurrection of the existing agreement on Monday or possibly opening of business on Tuesday. It will be simply too absurdly chaotic and dangerous for Nokia to continue with their illegal plans on Tuesday. They might be stupid, but they aren't insane. Well, they might be. But probably not. Finland needs Nokia to do more than make gumboots. Finland versus the USA and a nuclear-armed riled-up King George II is not a good match, even if the EU bureaucrats come lumbering into support of Nokia to help socialist theft. MSFT is already being unduly harried by the EU. Seeking to destroy QCOM will start to look like a trend. At some stage, Uncle Sam will have to say "Enough!" Nokia is under intense pressure with only one sensible option. Mqurice