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: JGoren who wrote (72970)	1/2/2008 11:45:45 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196856

JGoren, I agree with your points, and would add one more. Any action Broadcom might file worldwide (assuming their patents in suit are globally protected), would certainly be met by countersuits from Qualcomm alleging infringement of some core/essential 3G IPR. I doubt Broadcom would be stupid enough to mess with that hornets nest.

To: JGoren who wrote (72970)	1/2/2008 11:59:52 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 196856

. . . the rate for a Qcom license should now be 10%. Agree. The latest court ruling, which on the surface looks bad for QCOM, in fact establishes a precedent justifying perhaps twice the royalty rate QCOM has obtained from existing licensing agreements. QCOM might want to sit down and negotiate rates for essential and non–essential IP, but the court has made possible a lot more royalty revenue for QCOM than had existed before. I also agree with earlier comments that the ruling has really damaged the FRAND arguments set forth by Nokia and its allies Maybe Nokia will now be interested in renewing its licensing agreement with QCOM at the old rate -- before QCOM begins to insist on even higher rates for all new licensees or relicensees. Art