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: slacker711 who wrote (67782)	8/17/2007 10:11:33 AM
From: GO*QCOM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197214

<the leverage Q has with the ability to do a SpinCo2 goes up dramatically after the option expiration.> Agree SPINCO 2 is pretty much a certainty going forward into 08 unless a settlement occurs beforehand.

To: slacker711 who wrote (67782)	8/17/2007 2:18:17 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

"If [edit: Nokia] can get injunctions against Q prior to that date, they will have an enormous amount of leverage." And they might be able to get a stay in the Western District of Wisconsin at the same time. Nokia filed an infringement counterclaim there for six GSM/WCDMA/CDMA implementation patents. (I don't think we've learned the actual patent numbers yet.) Today Nokia files an infringement claim for five GSM/WCDMA/CDMA patents ... and the PR wording sounds like they are also implementation patents. So I think it's likely the ITC filing involves five of the same patents. Even if that guess is true, I have no idea if a case in federal court can actually be stayed because patents in the counter-claim are the same as the patents in ITC action. However, with the seemingly bizarre results lately, I'm beginning to believe almost anything. :-) At least the ITC filing will provide the U.S. patent numbers very soon.

To: slacker711 who wrote (67782)	8/18/2007 2:16:47 PM
From: Glider05	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197214

Slacker, What is then your assumption of what an alternative conclusion by an arbitrator of the Q claim of automatic renewal because of shipment continuation by NOK would be? That it is not an automatic renewal, therefore NOK can continue to ship product without paying Q, and that's OK? Just trying to make sense of this, and finding it difficult since none of us has insight into the wording of the contract. 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.