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: Maurice Winn who wrote (67847)	8/17/2007 2:47:04 PM
From: mindykoeppel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197227

Mqaurice - your post made my day - you are terrific!

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (67847)	8/17/2007 3:39:05 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197227

mQ, Re: QCOM v NOK license renewal, and “The standard of what is FRANDly has risen way beyond QCOM's absurdly cheap 3% or so [which I guess Nokia is paying]. No olive branches for Nokia. Hire swarms of lawyers and prosecute them in more venues. Defend QCOM property everywhere. Demand the market rate for QCOM intellectual property.” So I take it that you feel there is a possibility that there could be some substance to NOK’s Simonsons’ statement ... "We won't pay more,"... inferring that the Q’s negotiating position for the renewal reflects a royalty rate increase to bring NOK up to the FRANDly rate (world standard) that most handset mfgs enjoy?? And, perhaps, the Q’s management would be derelict to their long term handset partners (and investors) if they didn’t attempt to level the playing field ?? . 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: Maurice Winn who wrote (67847)	8/17/2007 7:48:46 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197227

"Disclosure" is meaningless because Nokia knew many years ago that QCOM owned said intellectual property.... An angle I pushed as a potential defense but it gets tricky, very tricky. Legally and as a matter of logic and common sense, no one is obliged to disclose what another already knows. But that is too simple a point if standards are at issue because the potential for abuse is huge. Some day, a judge or judges is going to have to grapple with the question, i.e., is an infringer who knows that undeclared IPR is being used in a standard free to infringe for that reason alone or is he obligated to do more? Does he have to report the undeclared IPR himself or is he free to infringe? Is the owner of the IPR free to man his submersibles if he believes that a potential infringer is aware of them? These are hellaciously difficult questions. I have no idea how they will be resolved except to note a trend towards uniformity and application of the rules formulated by the bodies. The courts I think will abide in large measure by what the SSOs provide for.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (67847)	8/18/2007 7:00:28 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197227

All this fractious fighting over IPR may one day result in the worst of all possible outcomes, government intervention. It is entirely possible that SSOs and SDOs will be legally mandated to fix a % royalty for the IPR used in a standard, then be legally required to appoint a board of presumptively neutral arbiters whose job will be to weigh the value of the IPR on a sliding scale, with the owner of the most useful getting the highest share of the royalty and the least useful of course taking less. This would take the courts and the ITC out of the process because the courts would review only to determine if abuse has taken place in assigning a share to each participant.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (67847)	8/18/2007 7:54:13 PM
From: phatbstrd	Respond to of 197227

My 'snooker buddy' MQ, No olive branches for Nokia. Hire swarms of lawyers and prosecute them in more venues. Defend QCOM property everywhere. Demand the market rate for QCOM intellectual property. Absolutely! It is always proper to make a stand against thieves. I see alot of posts now stating that nok contributed significantly to wcdma. What a crock. I also see herr Goebbels spouting that Q should be grateful for the IPR nok contributed to that selected group of thieves... another crock. Anyone besides me remember the countless posts a few years back about how the EU and all the SSO's were really coming together to form UMTS.. more mierde in the crock. By the way, when wcdma units get counted it belongs on the CDMA side of the ledger. Although, maybe to be fair and give some credit to the exterior color on the car and ashtrays that nok et al provided, but in which Q supplied the engine, transmission, differentials, and suspension, each unit will be counted on a pro rata basis. .65 for CDMA .15 for GSM .20 for all others 500 million wcdma units = 325 million CDMA and 75 million GSM