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: JGoren who wrote (62515)	4/12/2007 2:10:57 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196962

how does that translate into today's environment? The 2001 royalty rate reflects market conditions in 2001. An appropriate royalty rate in 2007 should also be governed by market conditions. The best evidence that the current rate of about 5% paid by some 140 licensees and objected to by only one speaks for itself. Nokia will have a tough time getting around that issue. Your view that there are many possible ways to calculate an effective royalty rate that appears to be around 3% is right on target. I don't think that a detailed analysis of how Nokia got that figure would help it much before a court or the EC. Finally, the announcement that QCOM rejected the Nokia $20M offer but used it to show that Nokia has unilaterally exercised its option to renew the license, albeit at an unaccpetable royalty rate, should really work in favor of QCOM. First, it shows that Nokia believes its licensing agreement is in effect. Second, it may justify QCOM continuing the cross licensing agreement that purportedly expired on April 9, thereby allowing QCOM to continue selling equipment containing Nokia IP, without infringing Nokia's patents. The more announcements I read from both Nokia and QCOM, the more I am convinced that Nokia is already defeated, and the ultimate renewal agreement (probably very close to the existing one) will probably never be revealed publicly. One thing for sure, though, is that QCOM MUST demand the same royalty rate (subject to quantity discounts, perhaps) as that paid by other licensees, both to defend itself on the matter before the EC, and as a matter of fair and ethical business practice. Art

To: JGoren who wrote (62515)	4/13/2007 12:52:10 AM
From: Raglanroadie	Respond to of 196962

My point is that IMO to compare rates in CDMA to WCDMA is useless. If we assume that the "natural" migration path from GSM which has roughly 16% royalties is WCDMA then assuming Q has 30% of the patents results in a 5% royalty. Just because Q may have decided to price the CDMA standard at 5% in order to gain traction compared to 16% cabal rates should not automatically result in less WCDMA rates in comparison. They are two different animals with two distinct royalty structures for different reasons. NOK is attempting to drag Q in to the cozy cross licensing scam where every member pays every member zilch. If this is allowed to happen then in the future any company that invents a new and better technology will face a systematic watering down of their patents by the existing players in order to marginalize their rightful assent to stature. NOK should be told to go pound sand.