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 (68189)	8/24/2007 3:19:49 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 197507

It's refreshing to read Eric's spin on QCOM IPR, no matter how close or distant it is from reality. Art

To: Eric L who wrote (68189)	8/24/2007 3:54:07 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197507

Eriq, the word "confiscate" isn't applicable to what QUALCOMM does in relation to freely formed exchanges of value with consenting adults who own other intellectual property. <QUALCOMM has a practice of attempting to confiscate the IPR of others on a royalty free basis > Confiscation is what juries, judges and politicians can do, and have done, to QUALCOMM's property. Confiscation involves compulsion. As is already evident in QUALCOMM's negotiations with Broadcom and Nokia, there isn't any compulsion, nor confiscation. If Nokia simply uses QUALCOMM's property without compensation agreed in a voluntary exchange of value and is backed by the legal and political systems, then that is confiscation. That is the current situation. It remains to be seen whether the USA legal, political and military processes do anything about USA property being stolen around the world. I would be willing to go nuclear with Nokia and DENY THEM THEIR REQVEST to use QUALCOMM intellectual property. Sure, that would cost me a lot of money for a while and might limit ASIC and other sales by QUALCOMM. But there are so many more willing licensees who would just love to see Nokia go back to making gumboots that the 80% profit market share and nearly 40% device market share which Nokia enjoys could be redistributed to swarms of competing device makers who would soon make up the difference, and more. QUALCOMM would lose, but Nokia would lose hugely and be on a downward slippery slope to oblivion. Nokia will not choose that in a pathetic attempt to leverage their poxy little obvious patents to gain another 1% or 2% advantage over their competitors when they have been doing extraordinarily well with the large advantage they already have in royalties payable to QUALCOMM. Nokia is a dangerous and greedy monopolist [using the common parlance of having a high market share, which is silly, but that's what people do]. Nokia is demanding more. QUALCOMM gets a smaller royalty for a whole armada of patents while Broadcom charges $6 per device for one poxy little patent [with a few others thrown in to make it look less obscenely greedy]. They are only managing to charge that because they have managed to get the USA legal and political system to give them the whip with which to flog the supplicants and confiscate a hagfish-sized bite of the revenues, or else. Please cease and desist from using the word "confiscate" in relation to QUALCOMM's voluntary agreements among consenting adults. As you will see by using the word "confiscate" in a search of this stream, I have copyright to it and usurpation and inversion of it to apply to QUALCOMM is a breach of intellectual property rules. Mqurice