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 (68139)	8/22/2007 10:46:59 PM
From: mindykoeppel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197464

IMHO Q's biggest faux pas and this was under IJ was to cave in to WCDMA which was Nokia's ace in the hole. There would be NO 3G without CDMA and it should have, could have, would have been all Q. Instead in order to get NOKIA to sign on the dotted line in 2001, I hope they did NOT give away the sotr. Q had NO need for GSM and should NEVER have consented to including GSM in the 3G standard. We should have taken our lumps back then and this would all be OLD news. NOKIA has masterfully extended the lifeline of GSM with GPRS and EDGE for 6 years and not paying a dime of royalties on stand alone GSM with stolen CDMA IPR from Q.

To: Eric L who wrote (68139)	8/23/2007 4:30:08 AM
From: pyslent	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197464

Nokia's 2 infringement actions brought in response to QUALCOMM's actions in US District Courts are also for non-essential Nokia implementation patents (BREW, MediaFlo, direct conversion, etc.) as is the ITC action. Qualcomm and Nokia are now technically infringing numerous of each other's patents ... BUT neither is asserting those patents against each other, to their credit. Thanks for the detailed post. Just for clarification, is it your impression that the cross license only covered CDMA, WCDMA, and GSM patents that had been declared essential? I've assumed that even Nokia's implementation patents were covered in the 2001 agreement, which is why the countersuits indicate that Nokia considers the agreement expired (and not extended). On the other hand, Qualcomm, as you say, has not asserted any patents covered under the agreement.