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: patrickp who wrote (75505)	3/15/2008 10:16:12 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197226

Patrick, if "fully paid up" were simply the patent exhaustion doctrine, as you suggest, why would Nokia's spin machine be only claiming it applies to some "earlier patents"?

To: patrickp who wrote (75505)	3/17/2008 1:14:50 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 197226

You are talking about patent exhaustion: "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." If you are right, then Nokia's argument is very vague and unclear. From what I have seen, Nokia is arguing that under its license agreement, no value should be given to older patents that are "paid up." That is a different argument from patent exhaustion.