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: scratchmyback who wrote (67780)	8/17/2007 6:08:16 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Respond to of 197214

Perhaps the ITC will lack jurisdiction, and Nokia's latest ploy will be stayed, pending the decision in the "cross-license extension" arbitration case. Qualcomm's GSM cases, before the ITC and other tribunals, would remain unaffected, as Nokia never signed a license, and paid royalties, for stand alone GSM/GPRS/EDGE products. I wonder how Nokia and friends are positioned for options today, given the timing of their ITC filing and PR?

To: scratchmyback who wrote (67780)	8/17/2007 7:31:43 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197214

Nokia Requests ITC Investigation into Qualcomm Unfair Trade Practices and Patent Infringement No real surprise. Nokia wants these cases wrapped up prior to the expiration of its option to extend the license at the current terms. If they can get injunctions against Q prior to that date, they will have an enormous amount of leverage. OTOH, the leverage Q has with the ability to do a SpinCo2 goes up dramatically after the option expiration. The worst of all worlds for Qualcomm would be to split the company and then end up getting paid the current rate from Nokia. If SpinCo2 does occur after the option expiration, the patent holding company will be asking for a dramatically higher license payment. At least that is my interpretation of Q's current legal strategy. If that isnt their plan, then I have no idea why they are filing such a weak arbitration case against Nokia. The idea that Nokia might have "automatically" renewed their agreement by continuing to ship product seems as ridiculous to me as Nokia's claim that the original agreement covered GPRS/EDGE handsets. Both arbitration cases seem just like delaying actions. Slacker

To: scratchmyback who wrote (67780)	8/17/2007 11:07:44 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 197214

Re: “Nokia announced it has filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) ...” NOK being a foreign outfit, wonder how this fits the ITC charter ---“ The ITC's power to ban foreign-made, patent-infringing products...” . Thought the U.S. ITC was established to protect U.S. companies, not the other way around????? Snip of WSJ editorial –“ Patent Bending Ding-a-ling! The ITC blows up the cell-phone market.” >>>>> The ITC's power to ban foreign-made, patent-infringing products goes back to the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930--which ought to be a hint that this is a bad idea. The fear was that American intellectual property would be stolen by foreign firms, which would use U.S. patents to produce goods overseas without paying royalties and then ship those products to the U.S. The law was never intended to substitute for domestic patent-infringement suits in federal courts between two American companies, which is the story here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinionjournal.com Patent Bending Ding-a-ling! The ITC blows up the cell-phone market. Saturday, June 9, 2007 12:01 a.m. Paging U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab: Please call us on your cell phone. And better do it fast because cell phones may soon be harder to come by thanks to one of the dumber rulings ever by the U.S. International Trade Commission. By a 4-2 vote on Thursday, the ITC decided to ban the import of any new cell phone model produced with certain microchips made by Qualcomm. ITC Chairman David Pearson dissented on grounds that the ban was antithetical to the public good, which is certainly true. But the import ban is effective immediately, and this means that President Bush, through Ms. Schwab, has just 60 days to set the ruling aside before it becomes permanent. There's an overwhelming case for doing so. The ITC's power to ban foreign-made, patent-infringing products goes back to the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930--which ought to be a hint that this is a bad idea. The fear was that American intellectual property would be stolen by foreign firms, which would use U.S. patents to produce goods overseas without paying royalties and then ship those products to the U.S. The law was never intended to substitute for domestic patent-infringement suits in federal courts between two American companies, which is the story here. The patent holder in this instance is California-based Broadcom, which has sued Qualcomm for infringement. Broadcom owns several patents relevant to the production of certain cell phones sold by Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, as well as T-Mobile and AT&T. In other words, pretty much every large cell phone operator in the country sells at least some phones that contain the allegedly infringing chips. The ITC tried to soften the blow of its ruling by grandfathering existing models and applying the ban only to future models. This was presumably a nod to the extraordinary breadth of the ban: Nobody, including Broadcom, actually makes competing chips in the U.S., so an import ban is tantamount to a total ban. However, anyone who's shopped recently for a cell phone knows that the future arrives fast in that industry, with new models coming all the time. The ITC ban is in effect a bar to innovation by these U.S. companies--a fact recognized both by Chairman Pearson in his dissent, and by the administrative law judge who originally heard the case and refused to issue a broad ban in October 2006. Moreover, Broadcom is already suing Qualcomm in federal court over these very same patents. There is thus no need for the ITC to muscle in, except to expand its own bureaucratic turf in the patent field. The ITC's separate process was created only as a way to deal with patent infringers who were beyond the reach of U.S. courts. This case is part of a larger legal patent quagmire that now has Congress entering with its own reform proposals. Uh, oh. So far, the proposals are a jumble of good and bad ideas, and that's before the boys on Capitol Hill start mulching in earnest. Everyone from Big Pharma to federal judges and small inventors is up in arms about something in the House and Senate twin bills. The only people not howling seem to be the lawyers, who no doubt assume that any big reform will require years of litigation and millions of billable hours before anyone is sure what in the name of invention it really means. Our own sense is that the patent system needs two things above all: better patents and less litigation, and the two are related. The U.S. Patent Office needs to raise its standard of patent quality, so that patent-holders and potential licensees both know that any patent is likely to be valid and upheld by the courts. Better patents also mean less costly litigation, because a patent that is both of high quality and clear purpose is much less likely to go to trial than one that is dubious, or too broad, or of uncertain application. Better patents depend most of all on a Patent Office that gives its examiners the right incentives--which means rewarding them for issuing quality patents rather than disposing of patent cases. The courts can help too, and recently they have been. Last month's Supreme Court decision in KSR v. Teleflex put down a marker on the "obviousness" of inventions that ought to be relevant to patent examiners who are considering whether to grant an application. If Congress really wants to help, it could start by refusing to let companies like Broadcom use the ITC as a legal backstop at the same time they're suing in federal court. In the meantime, let's hope Ms. Schwab uses her power to overrule the ITC in this case and save American cell phone companies and consumers from needless harm.