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 (62232)	4/9/2007 1:50:18 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197013

For one thing NOK has stated the usual rates for 1, 2, 3 and more patents. The price goes up. Second, I think it was the Delaware court opinion throwing out part of NOK's case that discussed that it's okay to bundle patents and more efficient (less costly in the long run) to license them that way. Obviously, Qcom cannot charge for expired patents. Now, I assume that you meant the core cdma patents that are essential to wcdma. I would assume there are other essential patents that have not expired; after all Qcom had to come to Europe's rescue and tell it how to make UMTS work when NOK's efforts failed. Someone familiar with the technology probably can identify what Qcom invented especially for wcdma. Nevertheless, I don't think any of the patents have expired yet. Part of NOK's strategy appears to be delay until some of them do. We really don't know what "paid up" means. Just because nothing is owed on an old licensing agreement doesn't mean that at some point NOK does not need a new license agreement under which it pays royalties. We just don't know the details. Bottom line, Qcom's position, I think, is that whatever patents it has that were not the old ones are so essential that basically nothing has changed as to their value other than they are more valuable. That is not unreasonable. If I invent something and there is virtually no use in the market place for it right now, I won't be able to command a high royalty rate. But, if the market develops, when it comes time for a new license, the patent or follow up patents would be a lot more valuable because of the revenue they can help generate. Take the hypothetical of the gasoline combustion engine. If it's invented in the horse and buggy days, initially it may not have a lot of value. But as automobiles become a big deal, then the engine patent is a lot more valuable and if I have invented the spark plug and a superduper carburetor, those patents can certainly command the same price the expired engine patent commanded.