SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jim Mullens who wrote (67827)8/17/2007 1:23:45 PM
From: slacker711  Respond to of 197231
 
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 “

Nokia's option to extend means that there is pretty much no chance that they are going to pay more until the option expires....and Q demanding even higher payments would have been a non-starter. Personally, I certainly hope that Q brought more realitic demands to the table, because if not, then quite a bit more blame for this entire ordeal would need to be layed at the feet of Q's management.

Simonson's quote was just outlining the potential risk to his investors. His quote is spot on for the next 16 months....but I doubt he'd be able to say the same thing in '09.

Slacker



To: Jim Mullens who wrote (67827)8/17/2007 1:53:06 PM
From: Paul V.  Respond to of 197231
 
Jim, 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."

Does anyone know what the past practice has been regarding these matters? How have previous arbitrators ruled regarding the expiration of an agreement between two parties where one party has continued to use a patented goods or services without payment?

Paul