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 (62927)	4/20/2007 4:34:21 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197634

I understand all that, but pooled royalty information could be given and they should stop talking about the 'standard' rate if there isn't one and individual companies negotiate different prices. You are saying that the standard rate is a lie, while 'special' discounts might be given to some people. That makes negotiations MORE difficult, not easier. Honesty makes negotiations easier, not more difficult. If everyone sees a FRANDly 37% royalty, which is about the right level, given patent exhaustion and all that, then they'll just pay it and we could have saved untold negotiation and muck with Nokia. Part of QCOM's 'standard' royalty terms could be that the agreements will be public information when made. If it's true that they are standard royalties, let's see them. If it's not true, stop saying they are. So far, non-disclosure terms have been cause of litigation, mistrust and problems, to the tune of umpty $ million and possibly the whole enchilada if QCOM ends up with dirty, filthy hands and no royalties being paid by Nokia, which will mean anybody as nobody else will be able to compete with Nokia if Nokia isn't paying royalties [they already can't compete - Nokia has a monopoly, in the terms that the word is bandied around these days]. What has been the gain from all the secrecy? So far, I see huge problems and no benefits. I see insider trading and counter-parties disadvantaged. When QCOM buys back their shares from some poor sap trying to guess what to do, they have all the information on royalties, agreements, and everything else which they hold close to their chests. The poor sap sticks his finger in the wind, believes things such as "We are using NO Nokia patents. Look at our clean hands" and tries to work out what to do. Without having any information on what royalty rate QCOM is getting, other than approximate from leaked information, which might or might not be true. Look at the stupid drama lately with Nokia saying they only pay 3%. Show us the bloody agreements and bank accounts and we can look for ourselves. Never give a sucker an even break is an old expression. It doesn't sit well with the SEC, class action lawyers, judges or juries. QCOM had better have very very clean hands, given the number of lawyers, judges and juries swarming around the many $billion pile. Which should be paid out pronto to shareholders. Juries and judges will think that they should get their hands on it, or award it to somebody as punishment. Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee! The rule of money is that if you have a big stack of it, people are going to rob you of it. So far, it has been heavily diluted by Big Ben and Uncle Sam. It should all have been spent buying back shares at $15 split adjusted a couple of years ago, or given as dividends instead of waiting for more devaluation. Mqurice