SI
SI
discoversearch

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: carranza2 who wrote (75614)3/20/2008 12:02:42 PM
From: JGoren  Respond to of 197206
 
Nokia alleges it couldn't value the portfolio at the time, that its intent (apparently secret) and that of Qcom btw, support its new contentions. It excuses itself. Qcom of course argues that the 2001 contract superseded its FRAND obligation. Nevertheless, the way Nokia treated the obligation in 2001 is highly relevant to assessing the validity of its newly found position.



To: carranza2 who wrote (75614)3/20/2008 2:45:10 PM
From: Stock Farmer  Respond to of 197206
 
In the delaware filing, Nokia asserts the '01 SULA was an interim agreement. I also expect that they didn't have the paid-up license to the [redacted] IPR and that this has bearing on the strategy they are invoking now.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News