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: Jim Mullens who wrote (62813)	4/19/2007 12:01:49 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196901

Jim, If I interpret correctly the DOJ and FTC report, it supports the policies taken by QCOM both before the SSO and in the Nokia complaint before the EC. Furthermore, the recent decision involving the QCOM patents used by BRCM would appear to be in conflict with the guidelines set by the DOJ and FTC. How do you see it? Art

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (62813)	4/19/2007 3:23:16 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 196901

It looks as though it was written for QUALCOMM. Enjoyable reading. The intention of the GSM Guild was to pool property to form a cartel with exclusionary royalties of 16%. The original property pooling trusts over a century ago were to do just that and they got the anti-trust laws brought to bear. <The Agencies will not generally assess the reasonableness of royalties set by a pool. The focus of the Agencies’ analysis is on the pool’s formation and whether its structure would likely enable pool participants to impair competition. > The various aspects of QUALCOMM's licensing all seem to be very well within the bounds of the principles given. Mqurice