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 (67823)	8/17/2007 1:16:57 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197231

Slacker, Re: QCOM v NOK / ITC, and >>> Any thoughts on this case? Personally, I find it hard to believe that an arbitrator is going to rule that Nokia automatically renewed the contract unless there was a provision for this in the contract. This would have meant that Nokia was actually in a worse position in the negotiations than if they had not had the option . Per Sag’s post earlier today, perhaps NOK “was actually in a worse position “, i.e. the Q’s new negotiating position included a higher royalty rate, thus Simonson’s vow “We won't pay more “>>>>>> Snip >>>>>>>>>> A longtime agreement under which Nokia pays patent royalties to Qualcomm expires April 9, and executives from both sides have expressed doubt that a deal will be reached by then. Rick Simonson, Nokia's chief financial officer, vowed that his company "will hold our ground" in pushing for lower royalty rates. "We won't pay more," Mr. Simonson said in an interview yesterday. "We expect to pay less."<i/>

To: slacker711 who wrote (67823)	8/17/2007 1:22:47 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 197231

find it hard to believe that an arbitrator is going to rule that Nokia automatically renewed the contract unless there was a provision for this in the contract. This would have meant that Nokia was actually in a worse position in the negotiations than if they had not had the option. Exactly, and that is the point that troubles me. How could Nokia have agreed to such a provision? Would they have stopped shipments in order to not pay royalties and/or not extend the license? Well, of course not! It would have made a lot more sense to simply agree to a long term license. In light of this, Q's claim makes no business sense to me. But obviously we have little to go on.

To: slacker711 who wrote (67823)	8/17/2007 1:54:25 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 197231

An automatic renewal, based on Nokia continuing to use WCDMA patents, seems contradictory at best. The other side, which we all know, is that Nokia offered $20 million and then continued as if the licensing agreement had been extended. But simple contract law would suggest otherwise. Unilaterally changing the contract terms without an agreement from the other party ought to effectually terminate the contract once the expiration date has passed. At the very least QCOM can request the ITC postpone any action on Nokia's most recent request until such time as the arbitrator rules on Nokia's so-called license to produce anything using QCOM IPR. And then there is the issue of whether any GSM patents used by QCOM were covered by its cross licensing agreement with Texas Instruments. Okay, I don't want to complicate things more than they are already, but when all these issues are sorted out, it's hard for me to believe that Nokia or the other QCOM adversaries can prevail. Art