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 (75681)	3/20/2008 10:28:32 PM
From: ronbeavercpa	Respond to of 197214

Long (very) term holder and lurker with no tech stuff to add, however this discussion has caused me to come out into the daylight. It is a very interesting discussion but ..... In all due respect to engineer and the 100 company issue @ 1.0%, is everyone not missing the KISS idea of just declaring every one of the 10,000 patents available for a 5.0% royalty if asked for singularly or 5.0% to not have to name which one you wish to use and can use them all ? Why would that NOT be FRANDLY ? Thanks Ron

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75681)	3/20/2008 11:04:59 PM
From: kyungha	Respond to of 197214

Thank you for long elaborated and what appears to be a valued information although hard for me to understand. I have a sort of blind love with this company for many years and it has been painful for me to see its suffering from litigation front especially against BRCM. Now, in regard to NOK's position, your posts seems trying to explain why QCOM is going to have problem in maintaining its business as usual. I have sold half of my holding today out of frustration. I just can't sell off all of them. It seems not a good time to buy or hold this stock now. But I want buy back when price is right, wondering what that will be.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75681)	3/20/2008 11:44:18 PM
From: planetsurf	Respond to of 197214

Don't forget it goes both ways -- NOK WILL owe something at some point. That isn't in dispute. The longer they drag it out, the more they will owe. If they manage to get a sub 3.5% retroactive to when they stopped paying, they'll be at about $1 bil by Dec 2008. That's a big check to write. Even half that -- so sub 2% -- is still $500 mil! QCOM has already made it clear they are not letting a lack of revenues from NOK royalties distract them from increasing earnings and expanding chip technologies (both have been proven for 4 quarters). NOK is forcing their hand and they just HAVE to bend with it. I don't agree that it becomes a rabbit hole if (and that is IF) they are forced to litigate essential patent by patent. Just the opposite, other companies will be glad they have the 'package deal.' I'm betting NOK knows that they will end up with close to what QCOM is offering them now (I think, I haven't seen exactly what is on the table) and it won't cost them lawyers fees along the way. If NOK is counting on litigation fatigue, fine. The result of forcing QCOM to defend their business model to prove to all licencees that their deals are good? "To the mat we go!" NOK has stated that "we won't pay more, we would like to pay less." Well duh! They would like to pay way less. We may disagree a bit on the color, but of course I also think it is in QCOM's interest (more so for shareholders) to just throw them a bone. If they'll take it. Who knows, maybe we can throw them some silicone too!

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75681)	3/21/2008 10:28:40 AM
From: peterk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197214

If your hypothesis is so abundantly clear how has Qualcomm been able obtain signed contracts for their patents from over 140 companies?

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75681)	3/21/2008 4:52:12 PM
From: A.J. Mullen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

Stock Farmer, your analysis was thoughtful, carefully and patiently, explained, and very worrying. I apologize to all for my late response, but it all hinges on what proportional means. It seems to me that you have adopted the mathematical definition, that if f(x)=y then f(2x) =2f(x). I understand your point that having set a ceiling on the value of the entire portfolio, then preservation of proportionality would require each individual patent must be valued at much less than anyone would otherwise think fair. On the otherhand I also get Slacker's point that Nokia accepted in the Vitelcom case that pricing was non-linear. That by definition means it is not proportional in the mathematical sense - not just that some patents are more valuable than others. I don't know if Nokia acceptance of non-linearity in another case can be used against them in this case, but I don't think it matters. I just looked up proportion in my dictionary. (The Concise Oxford English Dictionary - JGoren and others may wish to stop reading here..) The mathematical definition is the fourth one given, another is Correct relation of one thing to another. The fifth definition is the most interesting to me: v.t. Make (thing etc.) proportionate to (must proportion the punishment to the crime) I think the requirement that the cost of IP must be proportionate is less strict than the formal mathematical definition. Punishment proportionate to the crime is a great example. Your suggestion that Nokia can subtract the cost of IP it doesn't use from the total cost for all IP is akin to a serial murderer appealing his death sentence. The punishment for killing, say, twice the number would be death too. He didn't kill the extra people, so the punishment for the uncommitted crimes should be deducted from his sentence, and he should walk free! I don't think the court will have a problem accepting a non-mathematical definition of proportionate. Ashley

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (75681)	3/22/2008 2:34:22 PM
From: BoonDoggler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

Is it just Nokia that is in this position, in your thinking, or anybody? Can I just start using Q's IP to build some cell phones, and when Q says you don't have a license, and I say how much, and Q says 5%, and I say those prices are not FRANDly, then I can just keep producing phones using Q's IP until we're done with the court battles? That seems a stretch. Why is it the Nokia has this advantage and I don't (assuming I've got endless financial resources)? Is the fact that Nokia has previously signed a license that puts them in this position? But the fact that the license expires in Dec. 2008 doesn't mean anything, by your thinking? How would the patent licensing system work at all with this logic in place? BTW, your comments are very much appreciated. As long as Nokia has a plausible argument that the prices it is being offered are not FRAND, they have a valid issue for trial before the courts. This is such a quagmire that resolution could drag on for years without resolution.