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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric L who wrote (936)	8/16/2007 2:27:11 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

EL ... the deadly determination of Qualcomm to achieve its goal of holding hostage an entire industry desiring to practice a mobile wireless standard by insulating its IPR from the standards development process so that the standards development organization would lose the opportunity to mitigate, if not to avoid, Qualcomm’s IPR in the development of the standards. We have indeed cut to the quick. I have posted a number of times that I see nothing by way of stated evidence in Rudi's judgement to support any of the accusations in that sentance. If there were anything he could have used to support those accusations he would have used them. He didn't. The other accusations relating to who was where and who knew what and waht tehy said about those in evidence are another matter. But about the sentance and the accusation above I have seen nothing in the judgement. "Deadly determination". Extraordinary language. "Holding hostage". Unsupportable. If that is the main plank of a worry that Q hasn't doen what it needs to do in compliance with normal and accepted practice then I do not beleve it is a worry. If there is some evidence you can point to in Rudis judgment that supports those far fethed accusation then by all means please point them out but I have been through the judgment several times and can't find any supporting evidence. Best, L

To: Eric L who wrote (936)	8/16/2007 2:44:53 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

The similarities of the video and edge sso cases are uncanny ... Wouldn't appealing the waiver ruling of the video case based upon previous licensing initiatives and prior declaration of the patents in suit to the ITU ISO/IEC MPEG committee (I trust?) support the postulation of c2 in this post? ... Message 22734754 Am I having a Lupinus Moment? youtube.com

To: Eric L who wrote (936)	8/17/2007 3:58:43 AM
From: Raglanroadie	Respond to of 9132

Eric I know you are a wealth of information and one not to tangle with lightly so I will tread lightly in my questions. "... the deadly determination of Qualcomm to achieve its goal of holding hostage an entire industry desiring to practice a mobile wireless standard by insulating its IPR from the standards development process so that the standards development organization would lose the opportunity to mitigate, if not to avoid, Qualcomm’s IPR in the development of the standards." Please weigh in on a few assertions if you will. 1. Early on NOK and their compatriots claimed they would work around Q's patents and therefore not need them. 2. Later it was determined they could not and consequently incorporated Q's patents into the next generation cellular standard. 3. Prior to the so called belated declarations to GERAN2+ they signed license contracts with NOK and others for explicit use of their patents in multi-mode GSM/WCDMA phones. 4. How does one ambush someone with whom they have a contract with that covers the same patents that predates GERAN2+ and that have previously been subject to attempted mitigation? It seems to me that either the Q's patents as they relate to GERAN2+ were so unique that they were not capable of being replaced with others or that NOK knowingly violated the terms of its own freely negotiated contract with Q by incorporating patents that did not have to be included. I guess in the end I am hung up on the fact that the above quoted statement deals with a standard that Q had no preexisting agreements with compared to NOK and GERAN2+ where previous agreements were in place. How does one ambush a licensee with patents covered under license for other products? In addition, whoever incorporated those patents must have felt they were critical or else they would have selected others for the intended purposes. If they were in fact not critical then what does that say about NOK and their business practices since they would apparently be defrauding Q for patents that they did not need to use. Hell I don't know but look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter.