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: slacker711 who wrote (68070)	8/21/2007 6:38:28 PM
From: kyungha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197452

I wonder if everybody here understand correctly this post of Slaker. <<OTOH, a stand-alone QCT would likely have been far more aggressive in the prosecution of the GPRS/EDGE patents as well as potential H.264 licensing revenue. They would also have the possibility of a substantial boost to their revenue from a full 5% royalty rate from Nokia..>> I thought the stand alone QCT would have had advantage of relegating most of patent litigation to QTL and should also have payed 5% royalty to QTL instead of receiving the same from NOK. Idea of Singco is for QTL keeps IPRs to collect royalty from all handset and chip makers including QTC. QTC will keep some of IPRs sufficient to cross license with friendly competitors or couter-shooting against unfriendly ones who own iprs which QTC needs. It seems we good American do not know how to fight war and have lost because we did not correctly figured out enemies well.