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: lml who wrote (62848)	4/19/2007 5:13:24 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196876

---> Qualcomm's early patents are now fully paid up Those facts are buried somewhere within the 1992 contract. If I remember right, that contract covered existing patents plus "some" filed within a fixed capture period. No one has yet to state the extent of that capture period nor distribute a list of applicable patent numbers. It would be nice if such information could be released into the public domain but I'm not holding my breadth. Fact ... most likely. Useful, relevant and comprehensive fact ... probably not.

To: lml who wrote (62848)	4/19/2007 5:18:25 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196876

Qualcomm acknowledges it as fact. Indeed, Qualcomm is trying to obtain a decision (via arbitration) that continued W-CDMA shipments are a de facto exercise of Nokia's option to renew at the prior royalty rate. Furthermore, if Nokia fails to pay that royalty rate, Qualcomm is seeking a decision that Nokia loses the paid-up status of those early patents.

To: lml who wrote (62848)	4/20/2007 10:59:07 AM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 196876

Are Nokia's actions just directed at breaking up the patent pool? The $20M payment they offered was for their UMTS handsets sales. In their subsequent press release they spoke of WCMDA handsets sales and only paying 3% aggregate royalties. Why did they use such different language? Do they consider UMTS handsets to exclude HSPA functionality? Todate, they couldn't have sold a lot of HSPA handsets making the majority of their "past" WCDMA handset sales strictly of the UMTS variety. How about this scenario ... They continue to pay $20M of so per quarter for their basic WCDMA (UMTS without HSPA) handset sales and make an additional royalty payment based on the current contract rate for their advanced WCMDA (UMTS with HSPA) handset sales in September. This would explain the revival of the WCDMA naming convention and also support cheaper handsets driving European operators moving to a strictly 3G handset policy, as Slacker noted in the previous post. Just wandering ... "As we continue to negotiate the new cross-license agreement, Nokia views this payment as fair and reasonable compensation for the use of relevant Qualcomm essential patents in Nokia UMTS handsets during the second quarter of 2007. Nokia believes that Qualcomm's patent portfolio is concentrated in the United States, and that it has few or no alleged UMTS patents in many of the countries in which Nokia has substantial UMTS handset sales. When Qualcomm's early patents become paid-up and royalty-free on April 9, 2007 Qualcomm's share of all patents relevant to Nokia UMTS handsets will significantly decrease", said Rick Simonson, chief financial officer, Nokia. ... Nokia today confirmed that until 2007 it has paid less than 3 per cent aggregate license fees on WCDMA handset sales under all its patent license agreements. This number represents Nokia's aggregate gross royalty payments made under all the numerous patent license agreements applicable to its WCDMA handsets. It excludes infrastructure related royalties and all royalty income collected by Nokia. The above WCDMA handset related royalty payments made by Nokia include all WCDMA handset royalty payments made to Qualcomm.