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: rkral who wrote (75504)	3/15/2008 9:54:29 AM
From: patrickp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197225

Re: "Paid up patents" While I am not a lawyer. the arguments in the recent Supreme Court case suggests that "paid up" has nothing to do with expiration of the patent(s), but rather refers to sales/production stream. For example, NOK argues that if chip maker XYZ pays royalty rights to QCOM for CDMA chips they make, then that payment "pays up" all royalty obligations. And when NOK uses those chips from XYZ to make/sell CDMA phones, they argue that they shouldn't have to also pay royalties to QCOM because XYZ has already paid them. In most cases this argument has merit, UNLESS the contract with XYZ specifically states that their payment to QCOM does not pay up the royalty obligations. The briefs submitted by QCOM and others made that exact point, and seemed to get a friendly reception by the court. The good judge in Delaware undoubtedly understands this concept. I have never seen any court throw out a valid contract that was willingly entered into by informed parties (and NOK has lots of lawyers to keep them informed) where both parties gave and received benefit from the contract. Nokia's goose is cooked, and they know it. All this other bs is stalling for time, hoping that QCOM will blink or Nokia can catch a lucky break from some legal body, somewhere, somehow. The "we've paid billions" garbage is not a legal concept ... it just explains their desperate motivation.

To: rkral who wrote (75504)	3/15/2008 11:39:55 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197225

The phrase "fully paid up" for expired licenses makes no sense to me. I believe that this is a list of the five core patents that lie at the heart of Q's invention of CDMA. The expiration dates are either 17 years from issuance or 20 years from filing....whichever is later. So, of these five patents, the first expired in '07, but the rest expire in '09 or '10. Nokia's license likely gave them a fully paid up status about 2 1/2 to 3 years early. Kudos to Carranza back in '01 :-).... Message 16815077 The spread spectrum patent, 4,901,307, was issued on Feb. 13, 1990. Application date was October 17, 1986. The power control patent, 5,056,109, was issued on October 8, 1991. Application date was Nov. 7, 1989. The soft handoff patent, 5,101,501, was issued on March 31, 1992. Application date was Nov. 7, 1989. The wave form patent, 5,103,459, was issued on April 7, 1992. Application date was June 25, 1990. The rake receiver patent, 5,109,390, was issued on April 28, 1992. Application date was Nov. 7, 1989.