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 (75135)	3/3/2008 2:13:28 PM
From: phatbstrd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197470

• The Delaware consolidation now becomes the main story for QCOM and excpect the EC will wait for the Del decision I find it ironic that the EU can't make decisions on thier own based on a fear of ruining their 'homegrown' companies' positions by not offering a ruling ahead of another court. If their decision making was truly fair and reasonable, shouldn't they have made a ruling a long time ago?

To: JGoren who wrote (75135)	3/3/2008 3:05:49 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197470

QUALCOMM is daring the USA legal, political and military system to throw it to the wolves. By refusing the idea of a split, they are handing themselves to Neelie Kroes and Judge Strine to do their worst, which we have seen can be quite bad. Kroes will enjoy stealing $billions from QUALCOMM shareholders and handing it to her mates in the KKK Kroes Klutz Klan lynch mob, just as she is doing with Microsoft. She doesn't need evidence or any of that boring legalistic stuff. She just needs to know QUALCOMM has got a LOT of money, it's American etc. The cases which have been lost had no element of surprise. The automatic assumption is now that QUALCOMM will lose all cases. My assumption with Judge Strine is that he will indulge the popular intellectual concept of "let's split the difference" as a means of resolving the case. Which is like a judge saying to a shop-lifter and shop-keeper, "How about we split the difference - you pay him half the advertized price. That seems fair and equitable." Sometimes, the correct outcome is NOT a split of the difference. His decision will not mention the price of spectrum as being indicative of the real market value of CDMA. GSM's 16% royalty will be ignored. W-CDMA's 12% of which 7% is not QUALCOMM will be ignored. Broadcom's $6 per patent will be irrelevant. Nokia's 1% for one patent will be for other patents. Neelie Kroes specification to MSFT that a suitable royalty is 0.1% will be considered a great resolution of a difficult legal question. QUALCOMM seems to lose so regularly, and patents seem to be invalid, or valid but unenforceable so often, that I wonder if a LOT of the patents are going to turn out to be invalid, unenforceable, with QUALCOMM having dirty hands, submarines and other faults. The idea of a submarine patent these days is absurd. 10 years ago I was thinking of variable pricing by base station and especially for Globalstar, displayed on the handset, to manage demand. I thought I'd see if it had been patented since somebody suggested it was patentable, which seemed ridiculous as it was such an obvious idea, though everyone in SI seemed to have trouble with the concept. Sure enough, Motorola had patented it in 1993 for Iridium and also for terrestrial base stations. The GSM Guild could do the same and search on-line for patents. They are right there, ready to view. It's not like the old days when patents were on paper and finding them would be a huge project. People who aren't members of the standards guilds could own patents, which wouldn't be submarined - of course people not involved with a standard don't follow it or have any idea that their patent is going to be used. Standards bodies can surely figure out that they had better find out what technology they are planning on using before they get too excited about "their" standard. That doesn't matter with TD-SCDMA in China because they just ignore property rights. Europeans don't care much either. But both China and Europe have quite large dealings with the USA so simply stealing QUALCOMM property might lead to reaction. Hopefully it does. Though in the USA, QUALCOMM seems to be considered a stepchild not worth much consideration. A bit like everyone loves to hate Microsoft. It's very fashionable. At the beginning of all this, I moaned about how much lawyers were being paid by QUALCOMM. Carranza and co berated me, explaining that you have to pay BIG fees to get good lawyers. Well, I'd have done it all for $1 million and would have got as good a result as the No-Downside QUALCOMM swarm of expert lawyers. It doesn't take much talent to lose everything. Mqurice