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: Glider05 who wrote (68063)	8/21/2007 12:25:49 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197452

I believe, maintains that they license Nok's IPR for 0.00 USD. If nobody else pays for it, then I guess the market has spoken as to the value of NOK's IPR. The vast majority of companies give almost no details regarding their licensing programs. I dont believe that either IBM or Intel reveals what they earn in royalties, should I believe that their IPR has no value? Closer to home, I dont think anybody had a clue that Motorola was sharing close to 20% of Qualcomm's CDMA royalties for years on end...until Keitel disclosed that program was going to end. Hundreds of millions of dollars were being collected by Qualcomm to be paid to Motorola and there was never even a rumor. Unfortunately, we know far less about the licensing terms in the mobile industry than we should.... Slacker

To: Glider05 who wrote (68063)	8/21/2007 1:24:35 AM
From: Glider05	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197452

OK, but maybe the reason that Qualcomm has 150 some-odd press releases announcing a 'royalty-bearing' agreement is because they have 150 some-odd net-payers, and maybe the reason that a company that has been waging a massive PR campaign to convince the world that 'the game has changed because our IPR is much more extensive and therefore much more valuable now" does not have any press releases announcing a royalty-bearing agreement is because they have no such net-payers. It seems it would sure help NOK's cause to say "see? so & so believes in the worth of our IPR, and has demonstrated so by paying us.". What is to prevent that? Confidentiality? I am suspect. Perhaps the reason that a guy who somehow knows everything there is to know about NOK answers the question "Do you know of Nokia licensees or cross-licensees who are net payers to Nokia?" with a "no" is because there ain't none, in which case the market has spoken to this point.