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: engineer who wrote (62622)	4/13/2007 11:27:32 AM
From: matherandlowell	Respond to of 197001

"Can't selectively enforce your patents. Have to do it uniformly or not at all." The Engineer has stated the key point of the entire conflict. j.

To: engineer who wrote (62622)	4/13/2007 11:32:10 AM
From: phatbstrd	Respond to of 197001

So unless Q is making handsets again, they most likely have a get out of jail free card. Can't selectively enforce your patents. Have to do it uniformly or not at all. With all the noise and speculation, it certainly is nice to get back to some of the pertinent and simplistic points...

To: engineer who wrote (62622)	4/13/2007 11:38:15 AM
From: pyslent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197001

"Can't selectively enforce your patents. Have to do it uniformly or not at all." Would that not apply to Qualcomm's GSM/EDGE IPR as well? It seems like a mistake that Qualcomm has already announced that it had no intention of asserting their GSM patents against the hundreds of other GSM handset makers... As for the observation that GSM chipmakers don't pay a royalty, it's clear that they still need a license, even if no royalties exchange hands. Otherwise, the Spinco strategy never would have been required in 2000-2001 to get QCT the IPR it needed.