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: Eric L who wrote (68050)	8/20/2007 7:04:54 PM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197444

"My own prsonal reciprocal opinion is that you significantly underestimate the breadth, depth, and quality, of Nokia's IPR portfolio across GSM, UMTS (WCDMA/HSPA and TDMA/CDMA), CDMA, and OFDMA." Do you know of Nokia licensees or cross-licensees who are net payers to Nokia?

To: Eric L who wrote (68050)	8/20/2007 7:09:35 PM
From: Brihack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197444

Eric, Rather than rely on your opinion or Art's opinion on the value of the two companies' patent portfolios (breadth, depth and quality over all stated technologies), I'm interested in what the market is willing to pay for their respective IPR. Qualcomm is not shy about its 150+ licenses and updates the new number at their quarterly earnings conferences. If I recall correctly, Steve Altman suggested that Nokia had not been able to gain any significant traction with its licensing efforts. Since you seem to follow Nokia very closely (and I don't follow it at all), do you have any better info on Nokia's licensing results? Thanks. Brihack

To: Eric L who wrote (68050)	8/20/2007 7:13:23 PM
From: thinkclear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197444

Eric, RE: Nokia, QUALCOMM, & WCDMA Thorough as usual. However, In you chronology between 1994 and '96 I believe that you got a few of your dates wrong by 10 years. The conflict between Nokia and QUALCOMM is a conflict between two significantly different business models and from Nokia's perspective, QUALCOMM's blatant disrespect for the IPR of others. I would characterize the conflict between NOK and QCOM as being purely about money. As you know, if NOK can pay even 1 percentage point less in royalty they save hundreds of millions of $/yr in the coming years. Applying as much pressure as possible to lower the royalty rate serves them and they have the fallback of their option to continue under the old terms. As far as the blatant disrespect for the IPR of others is concerned, is NOK above reproach in this regard? How many major technology based companies respect the IPR of others only out of force of law? As one of the past CTOs I worked for said; "Patents are weapons, not shields." bwdik, imho, and other disclaimers apply, -thinkclear

To: Eric L who wrote (68050)	8/20/2007 8:50:11 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 197444

Yikes! How did I do that. Corrected paragraph yet again ... AirTouch, in QUALCOMM's back yard, told their investors that they planned to have their network commercial in 1995 They didn't. They claimed a commercial launch in May 1996 but by Q3 1996 end they had a few thousand activated subscribers, less than APC Sprint Spectrum activated in store and OTA in its 1st day of operation on its GSM network 10 months earlier. - Eric -

To: Eric L who wrote (68050)	8/21/2007 1:05:10 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197444

now they are accruing them and will continue to do that until rates and terms are settled Eric, I don't know of any evidence or statement from Nokia that it is accruing unpaid royalties pending settlement. In fact, the offer of a flat $20 million (rejected by QCOM) suggests just the opposite: Take it or leave it, because that's all you're going to get. Because I don't see evidence of any set aside by Nokia, I conclude that Nokia's profits are overstated (based on my assumption that QCOM will prevail in the key issues currently under litigation). You're right that I may be understimating the extent of Nokia's IPR in regard to WCDMA and related technologies. But my thinking here is that many of Nokia's recent patents in this area are likely to be invalidated, at least in the U.S., owing to the recent Supreme Court decision in the KSR case. Even if I underestimate, I find it difficult to accept the notion that Nokia can sell WCDMA and related devices WITHOUT infringing one or more QCOM patents. All it takes is one claim of infringing one patent. I also believe we may never know who is infringing what, as the matters will be settled largely out of court as soon as one of the parties sees it could lose big time. Since Nokia has increased its global market share, and since the largest portion of what Nokia sells in the way of handsets is still GSM, with a smaller (but growing) number of WCDMA and related units, one can legitimately credit the continued growth in the GSM market as a main cause of Nokia increasing its market share. However, the profit margins on high end units that incorporate both GSM and WCDMA are where the future is, and Nokia apparently believes its future is marketing those units without having to pay royalties to QCOM. We'll see. Art