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: quartersawyer who wrote (64134)	5/28/2007 7:31:41 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197050

how do you figure the infringed Q patents went so long, so far in GSM/GPRS/EDGE? The idea voiced here many times that Q was unaware is vaguely absurd. I actually think that Q's inaction is relatively common in the tech industry. The vast majority of companies do not try and collect royalties for each and every use of every patent that they own. It is likely a bit of a gentleman's agreement that forestalls legal chaos as well as a defensive mechanism should another company come to them seeking royalites. For example, TI and Qualcomm signed a cross-license agreement in 2000 that mainly traded Q's CDMA patent portfolio for TI's DSP portfolio. I think there is a very high likelihood that Q's pre-2000 chips were in violation of TI's patent portfolio....and yet TI never pursued it. They knew they would eventually enter negotiations with Qualcomm and the end result was a royalty-free cross license that was negotiated without spending tens of millions of dollars in court. With regards to the GSM/GPRS/EDGE patents, I think Q figured they could keep it in their back pocket in the event that Nokia caused problems about an extension. This would work, except for the legal responsibilities that the standards organizations create for their members. Q never participated in making those standards but their employees were present at the meetings. Does that constitute membership? It would seem that Judge Brewster thinks it does and Q has been forced to change their legal strategy because of that. They are now suing for patents that arent essential, but might be "commercially necessary". I think that this creates a strong argument for splitting the company. If that had happened in '01, the product free QTL would have been free to pursue cases against any and all of the GSM/GPRS/EDGE equipment manufacturers. Slacker