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: Stock Farmer who wrote (75602)	3/19/2008 10:56:23 PM
From: ohohyodafarted	Respond to of 197252

Seems like a simple solution for this would be to propose that the rate for the patents individually will be the same as the rate for the entire bundle that we license to all our other customers. Then NOK gets what they want; only the essential patents call for in the FRAND agreement. Then QCOM can sue them for the patents that NOK uses that AREN'T licensed.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75602)	3/19/2008 11:26:05 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197252

Interesting thread. I'm curious how you square Nokia's current position on FRAND with the following quotes from a case they brought against Vitelcom that covered essential GSM/GPRS patents. qualcomm.com In its complaint against Vitelcom, Nokia accepted Mr. Stasik’s findings: “It is truly difficult to determine the separate value of either of the individual patents. In practice, the relationship between the number of patents and the total amount of royalties is not linear. For example, a license for a single essential patent may be 2.5%, a license for two essential patents can be 3.5% and a license for three essential patents can be 4%, while a license for ten or more essential patents rarely exceeds 5%.” Of course, I am sure that Qualcomm cut those quotes to make them sound as beneficial as possible, but I think the underlying point is likely true....Nokia was taking a similar position that Q is now. My general thought on Nokia's FRAND arguments is that they are going to need a judge to break new ground. It isnt as if lawsuits covering patents subject to FRAND havent occurred before and AFAIK, injunctions have been part and parcel of the process. Slacker

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75602)	3/20/2008 8:41:52 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197252

Nokia is striking at the heart of Q's business model, but is also making an argument which is potentially very dangerous as the price per patent could easily result in a total license/royalty burden which is higher than the one under the 2001 deal. We'll see. I wonder if Q's response is in the public record? I'd like very much to see it. From a purely intuitive standpoint, I think a judge trained in the common law will have some difficulty accepting the arguments NOK makes. They have an air of the surreal, a lack of commercial pragmatism and a seeming attempt to stealthily avoid its obligations which the judge may find offensive, i.e., the $80 million set aside is a joke. But that is my litigator's training at work using Rule No. 1 of litigation: Know Your Judge And Don't Piss Him Off.