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: blimfark who wrote (62124)	4/6/2007 7:07:32 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197028

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. It would definitely be great if it were true, but I extremely doubt it. What are the chances that Nokia never managed to contribute an essential piece of IP to GSM/GPRS/EDGE/WCDMA/HSDPA? They were involved in the formation of all of those standards. To put it in another context, if Broadcom has a patent that can shut down Qualcomm's DO and WCDMA chipset production, how can Nokia not? Slacker

To: blimfark who wrote (62124)	4/7/2007 1:38:11 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197028

Qcom ought to know what IPR is used in its chips, etc.; however, it has GSM patent rights from TXN and maybe others and maybe pass through rights. Assuming that GSM IPR is used, it may not be any patent rights that NOK can enforce. Thus, Qcom may believe that the other rights it has acquired means that it is not using NOK patents. See the distinction? Moreover, the GSM IPR patents may well have expired by this time, so Qcom would not be using any NOK patents. Things could get even more complicated. If NOK claims a right to royalties on something TXN cross-licensed to Qcom and NOK were determined to be correct, then it's possible that Qcom turns around and demands TXN pay the amount that NOK is determined to be due--assuming there is some kind of indemnity, hold harmless clause in the contract with TXN. Normally, licensing agreements contain indemnity clauses for infringement claims against the licensee.