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: pyslent who wrote (68147)	8/23/2007 7:17:10 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197472

"is it your impression that the cross license only covered CDMA, WCDMA, and GSM patents that had been declared essential?" I realize you asked Eric L. but ... My impression is the 2001 CDMA License Agreement covered both essential and non-essential CDMA, WCDMA, and GSM patents used in CDMA and WCDMA products manufactured by Nokia. This included multi-mode products even though one of the modes was GSM. Moreover there was a 3-year non-assert clause -- which may or may not have applied to both parties -- which prevented Qualcomm from asserting both essential and non-essential patents used in other Nokia products, including single-mode GSM handsets.

To: pyslent who wrote (68147)	8/23/2007 4:55:29 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197472

The Nokia QUALCOMM 2001 Licensing Agreement psylent, << Just for clarification, is it your impression that the cross license only covered CDMA, WCDMA, and GSM patents that had been declared essential? >> That is what I now infer rightly or wrongly, or at least that certain implementation patents are not covered by the agreement. That could, of course, not be the case. Liberal conjecture but none of us know. << I've assumed that even Nokia's implementation patents were covered in the 2001 agreement ... >> I've never assumed that. I'm generally rather conservative in making assumptions. I would have, however, assumed that Nokia would have been covered under the terms of the agreement for any essential GSM patents that QUALCOMM might at some time declare. So much for that assumption. <g> I only know what I know, but don't even know some things I sometimes think I know. <ggg> << On the other hand, Qualcomm, as you say, has not asserted any patents covered under the agreement. >> Neither has asserted essential patents covered by the agreement. Nokia never asserted any patents until May and that was, of course, after the agreement expiration. Cheers, - Eric -