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: JeffreyHF who wrote (68188)	8/24/2007 10:00:04 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197501

The 2001 QUALCOMM/Nokia Subscriber Equipment License Hi Jeff, << Eric, is it your position that Qualcomm gave Nokia a license for their entire portfolio of essential and implementation patents, yet Qualcomm only received a cross-license for Nokia's essential patents? >> That is not my position. I Have no more knowledge than you do of what specifically was/is covered by the 2001 QUALCOMM/Nokia subscriber equipment license that was extended and expanded from the original 1992 CDMA license after protracted negotiation. I will repeat, however, that I think that the likelihood that Nokia gave QUALCOMM a blanket license to any, much less all of its implementation patents, is low. That is not de facto industry standard practice. Whether or not QUALCOMM licensed some or all of their non-essential patents applicable to 'cdma' based technologies to Nokia is beyond my ken. QUALCOMM has a practice of attempting to confiscate the IPR of others on a royalty free basis in return for a license for CDMA based technologies at a "standard rate," and that is what initially got their teat inextricably entwined in Broadcom's wringer. In return for a WCDMA manufacturing license QUALCOMM demanded that Broadcom donate IPR not essential to, and only peripherally related to, that standard. Broadcom filed an anti-trust claim (NJ) and also litigated for infringement of non-essential patents they felt had commercial value. The rest is history, albeit history in progress, since subject to appeal. Cheers, - Eric -