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: carranza2 who wrote (75615)	3/20/2008 9:15:41 AM
From: mindykoeppel	Respond to of 197253

However, it seems that Q pissed of Judge Rudi Brewster so that I am not sure they can get a fair trial based on the merits anywhere in America!

To: carranza2 who wrote (75615)	3/20/2008 12:04:25 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 197253

There is a real problem with "mutuality" in the Nokia position as to what FRAND means. It's highly one sided.

To: carranza2 who wrote (75615)	3/20/2008 3:07:50 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 197253

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 My suggestion is exactly the opposite, and I believe Nokia expects this. By forcing Qualcomm to price patents individually, Nokia can then focus its efforts to challenge the validity of the highest value patents, or implement workarounds during any sort of "stalling period" they can impose by challenging the FRANDliness of price (a quagmire in itself). From a purely intuitive standpoint, I think a judge trained in the common law will have some difficulty accepting the arguments NOK makes. My better half teaches law. Had absolutely no problems with the logic or construction. If the operation of French law acts to confer an irrevocable offer to grant a license, and if implicit acceptance is found, and if ambiguity of price does not invalidate the contract, then each undertaking is a contract which Qualcomm is obliged to at least attempt to fulfil before it can seek injunctive relief. They have an air of the surreal, a lack of commercial pragmatism and a seeming attempt to stealthily avoid its obligations This depends on how the case is presented... Nok is a filing to block, or at least forestall an injunction which would effectively halt Nok's business... that is certainly pragmatic. I don't know the judge.