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: Maurice Winn who wrote (62920)	4/20/2007 1:34:46 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197629

As Roseanne Roseannadanna might say : "Boy, Mr. Winn, you sure do ask a lot of questions for a guy from New Zealand."

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (62920)	4/20/2007 1:50:12 PM
From: Raymond	Respond to of 197629

Maurice! We became members of SI the same year so over the years I have read a lot from you.You have always been one of QCOM management biggest supporters What has happened have you sold your QCOM stocks or do you just have a bad day?. /R

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (62920)	4/20/2007 2:29:24 PM
From: Rich Bloem	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197629

Maurice, you are way off base with this Oliver Stone Secretive scenario. All negotiated commercial contracts are confidential in nature. The only time these contracts come to attention of outside interested parties is during a law suit or in a SEC filing. Even then, proprietary information is kept from the public. The reason is simple. COMPETITORS. Employment Contracts, Purchasing Contracts and the such are always closely held. And, after all a royalty agreement is nothing more than a purchasing contract. The only contracts that I know of that are freely seen are ones that have no negotiation available or Government Contracts. "The most basic and ridiculous is the concealment of royalties paid. Never has the official standard rate been disclosed. If that's not a criminal act, I have no idea why."

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (62920)	4/20/2007 4:10:29 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197629

The most basic and ridiculous is the concealment of royalties paid. Never has the official standard rate been disclosed. If that's not a criminal act, I have no idea why. These are confidential terms, that if made public, would diminish Q's bargaining position with other potential licensees. Furthermore, the confidentiality works both ways; it protects the licensee as well as the licensor, particularly if the former can cut a better deal with the latter w/o upsetting other licensees of the same IP. I can only see royalty rates disclosed if both parties agree, and it's most likely in neither party's interest to disclose these market-sensitive terms to the investing public. When you buy stock, you're making a bet on the MANAGEMENT whose been entrusted by the BOARD OF DIRECTORS to maximize shareholder value. If you do not have faith in Q's management, then you shouldn't hold the stock. JMO.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (62920)	4/22/2007 1:52:08 AM
From: pyslent	Respond to of 197629

The most basic and ridiculous is the concealment of royalties paid. Never has the official standard rate been disclosed. The agreements are confidential, and I've always had trouble reconciling that with the whole idea of a "Most Favored Nation" clause. Are companies supposed to rely on Qualcomm to enact MFN if and when they ever get out-negotiated? "Dear Samsung, Nokia had us over a barrel, so we are reducing your rate to an undisclosed amount. We'd tell you what it is, except that we aren't allowed to." Incidentally, can you imagine how upset the Koreans would be if they ever read Masa's post about Nokia's 1.5% royalty? <ggg> 747s wouldn't even begin to describe it!