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: carranza2 who wrote (67873)	8/17/2007 8:05:45 PM
From: sag	Respond to of 197227

Disclosure" is meaningless because Nokia knew many years ago that QCOM owned said intellectual property.... Yes,Yes,Yes.Nokia signed a license agreement with QCOM specifically prohibiting the use of their GSM/GPRS/EDGE patents in a device that did not include CDMA(of any flavor). Early on Nokia said the patents were covered by their licensing agreement with QCOM and as a result there was no infringement. Oops,they never sent an accounting or check to QCOM. Well then,on second thought we didn't infringe at all! Connect the dots.

To: carranza2 who wrote (67873)	8/17/2007 8:28:03 PM
From: pyslent	Respond to of 197227

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? It seem like the current interpretation is that the onus is on participants in an SSO to "speak now or forever hold your peace." Given that, no good can come from not being completely upfront about applicable IPR, if you are discovered to be a participant in an SSO.