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: JeffreyHF who wrote (75843)	3/26/2008 12:52:07 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197214

Incidentally, your assertion that the threat of injunctive relief isn't available to Qualcomm has yet to be judicially determined Incidentally, it also has yet to be my assertion. My assertion is that Nokia is filing to block Qualcomm's access to injunctive relief. Which is a fact. My assertion is that Nokia makes this claim on the basis of not having been offered FRAND terms for, at least, a subset of Qualcomm's patents. And my assertion is that the basis for Nokia's claim is not without merit. Can you cite to legal authority that has construed or defined FRAND as Nokia (again inconsistently) now suggests Two points. Firstly, in citing Nokia's "inconsistent" behavior, I presume you are regurgitating Qualcomm's comparison of Qualcomm v Nokia against Nokia v Vitelcom. Presumably you think Nokia as plaintiff arguing a % royalty from VitelCom for a handful of patents being FRAND is inconsistent with, as defendant against Qualcomm claiming a similar% royalty for a broad portfolio of patents being not FRAND. What this "comparison" glosses over is the offsetting value of the patent portfolios of the counter-parties. We can't just exchange names and expect the bargaining positions to swap with them. Not when VitelCom holds no meaningful patent portfolio whatsoever. Obviously, they should receive no meaningful credit for their IPR in opposition to Nokia in any cross licensing deal. And that can still be FRAND. Nokia is arguing that Qualcomm has not offered FRAND terms to Nokia, by virtue of not appropriately recognizing the differences in Nokia's position versus that of its other licensees, and by not recognizing changes in Nokia's position today versus in the past. There is ample legal, commercial and common sense precedent that one donut is worth less than the entire dozen from which it was plucked, and eleven donuts are also worth less than the entire dozen, even if donuts are cheaper by the dozen. You shouldn't have to send me searching case law to prove that. Second, what's FRAND mean again? According to Qualcomm, FRAND is offering everybody the same terms. Buy one patent, get 'em all. Same low price. By Qualcomm's own characterization, FRAND means offering to Broadcom the same deal that Qualcomm offered Zyray, which was FRAND by virtue of being similar in its terms with deals accepted by two recent and undisclosed licensees. One price, all parties, all patents. But wait a minute... maybe Qualcomm's offer to Broadcom wasn't all that FRAND after all. Maybe Broadcom has some IPR that Qualcomm needs. Maybe that's why Qualcomm offered two successively sweeter deals that are distinctly different from the deals which Qualcomm has with everybody else. What do you think? Is one-size-fits-all FRAND? Or does "FRAND" depend on the party with which one is negotiating at the time? Nokia's assertion is that Qualcomm's offer of "one size fits all" is flawed. Qualcomm, in their own filing, appears to agree. As I said, guns into toes. Boom. Does FRAND demand only one solution, or is it like pornography, where the threshhold is defined on a case by case basis, with a range of acceptable compromises being sanctioned? Answered already, but I believe that it's on a case by case basis, with a range of acceptable compromises. I also believe that just because something is FRAND for Zyray and two other licensees, for example, doesn't mean it's FRAND for Broadcom. Or anybody else, for that matter. Possibly including Nokia.