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 (75859)	3/26/2008 9:29:26 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197225

Zyray Patent ... patft.uspto.gov ... It will be most interesting to see how this one holds up once 4G (MIMO) negotiations get rolling ... Message 22687335

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (75859)	3/26/2008 10:31:14 PM
From: pyslent	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197225

I don't think any of us are in a position to compare the value of TI's patents vs. Broadcoms'. I believe that SF's point is that the combination of Broadcom + Zyray must have a portfolio greater in value than Zyray alone. For Qualcomm to offer the same terms to both means that they considered Broadcom's portfolio to be a "throw in." No surprise to me that Broadcom felt like they had to teach Qualcomm a lesson.

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (75859)	3/27/2008 12:21:50 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197225

And what essential 3G IPR did Broadcom get from Zyray Wireless, that required Qualcomm to give Broadcom a better deal than the FRANDly royalty-free agreement it has with sophisticated TI? Nothing. I see you haven't read Qualcomm's latest filing in the Broadcom issue, or if you have, not very carefully. It lays out 4 successive offers that Qualcomm made to Broadcom. Zyray's role is described in paragraph's 61 through 63. Once upon a time, Zyray was this dinky startup, doing some WCDMA stuff, to whom Qualcomm apparently offered their "standard" FRAND terms. You know, pay 8%/7%/6% of your revenues to us, and we'll give you some of our IP, and you'll give us all of yours, yada yada. Zyray didn't bite. Instead, Broadcom bought Zyray. At which point Qualcomm sent the same offer to Broadcom (the new owners of Zyray), describing this offer as being FRAND by virtue of being the same offer sent to ZyRay and indeed substantially similar to offers sent to other recent licensees. Therefore, by definition (Qualcomm's definition), fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. Broadcom apparently told Qualcomm to get stuffed, and, as described in Para 64, instead suggested that maybe it's IP was worth enough that Qualcomm might want to think of paying a balancing payment instead. Apparently it was a bit of surprise to Qualcomm that Broadcom might have valuable IP. Even more surprising that Broadcom's IP might be even more valuable!!! The point is not that Broadcom acquired massive IP from Zyray as you seem to suggest. The point is that Qualcomm offered licensing terms to ZyRay which they characterized as FRAND, and these same terms to Broadcom, which they also characterized as FRAND, despite Broadcom's IPR position being equal to Zyray's IPR plus Broadcom's IPR. In other words, valuing Broadcom's entire IPR portfolio at $NIL. The unreasonable nature of which has subsequently been crammed down their throat by the courts. The point is that just because a deal was FRAND enough for Zyray, or some other contemporaneous Qualcomm licensees, doesn't make those same terms FRAND when applied to Broadcom. Or anyone else for that matter. Possibly including Nokia. Pretty much a slam dunk, that one. Particularly as Qualcomm's own legal beagles set it forth in writing for everyone to read. Blam. Toe surgeon, anyone?