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: Dash of Reality who wrote (75161)	3/4/2008 11:29:49 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197485

Even before the consolidation, I posted my opinion of what would happen. Judge Strine is a savvy judge who knows how to maneuver the parties into settlement. I predicted he would be successful in maneuvering them into submitting the case to him on a consolidated basis. I think in Phase 1 he will be successful in making rulings that tell the parties where they need to come out and thereby pushing a settlement. Normally, the way to get a result that is not appealable is by ruling on the law in favor of one party and ruling on the facts for the other. Fact determinations are very hard to appeal. So, on critical issues, one prevents an appeal by Nokia by ruling in its favor (whenever feasible) on legal issues. Given that Nokia has stated 2-5% is reasonable in the Spanish case, given that a single Broadcomm patent was worth $6, if the Judge thinks he has the power to set a royalty rate, I think we will see a royalty rate in the neighborhood of 4-5%, maybe more with an increased credit for cross-license of Nokia patents. He will rule that whatever the FRAND obligation was Qcom satisfied it through good faith negotiation. Qcom's implied extension argument, seems to me, to be a difficult and risky hat to hang the case on. My sense is that the law is very general on this area and could be an appealable point to rule that Nokia impliedly extended by its continuing to ship product. Nokia claims that no injunction can be ordered in Qcom's favor because FRAND requires a license. In theory this might make sense, but the problem is that if injunctive relief is not available, then it validates Nokia's scheme of non-negotiation. Only injunctive relief can force the parties to negotiate. A key question is whether the court can set a royalty rate.