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 (75646)	3/20/2008 3:55:58 PM
From: planetsurf	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197212

Nokia's complaint is designed to force them back and conceded that maybe some sort of better discount is actually in order. That's been my take all along too, but I just don't get why <<this forces Qualcomm to carve the "Value B" bucket up into two sub-buckets - those patents which it thinks Nokia is using, and those patents which it thinks Nokia is not using. The value of these two buckets must add to Value B calculated above>> Is there someting specific to ETSI rules that says this? While I can buy 1 box of kleenex at the supermarket for $1, they also have 4 for $2.25. If I go to Costco, they have 8 for $4.25. Is the value of 1 box of kleenex $1 (and I get a bargain at Costco) or $.53 (and I overpay at $1/box)?? It is understood that it cost everyone more to get 1 box of kleenex on the shelf at the supermarket vs. the 8 at Costco but both are probably reasonable prices. My understanding is FRANDly rules are in place because there is no competition for patents -- no Puffs to gain marketshare by pricing lower than kleenex in an open market -- so agreements make sure that prices are fair and reasonable. What isn't fair and reasonable about charging more % for 1 patent vs 2 patents vs 5 vs 100?? And at 5%, if many are paying for lots of patents they don't need, it is reasonable to assume that the 20 they DO need would equal AT LEAST 5% and it just makes everyones life easier to just have a license for all Q's patents. If NOK wants to break-it-up fine. 1% per essential patent up to 5%, when you get them all thrown in.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75646)	3/20/2008 4:38:11 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197212

Qcom is not going to accept 2%; end of story. Qcom is in a no-lose situation, too. Even if it settles, someone else may try the same thing. It might as well get a ruling on Nokia's theory now and know the lay of the land. The procedure Nokia wants is destructive to the efficient licensing of patents. I don't think it can ask for individual licenses and then cap the total. Remember, it admits there must be a single subject matter and that is one patent and one patent only.