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: bronx who wrote (75880)	3/27/2008 12:25:24 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 197244

My understanding is that the '01 agreement included Q's use of GSM patents, so that's not changed. Yes, I had mixed up my time frames. Serve me right for not grounding my references. Thank you. For reference, the basis of dispute, and the change in landscape from the '92 SULA to the '01 SULA is laid out in para's 88 through 94, and from after the '01 SULA in para's 95 through 99. Unfortunately, most of it has been redacted. From what is clear, Nokia represents the market need for their GSM patents to have been increasing, and that they have a fully paid up license for some subset of patents. Because of the language, and I am merely guessing, I suspect that Nokia has reviewed Qualcomm's patent portfolio and determined that there isn't much that Qualcomm has which Nokia is required to use that Qualcomm hasn't either (a) granted a fully paid up license, or (b) declared as essential to ETSI. The gap would be those patents which are not "fully paid up" and which are not declared Essential IPRs to ETSI, but which one party or the other needs. Nokia's language is intentionally throwing this door wide open and slamming closed the possibility of injunction in other areas. By the way, as Slacker has suggested and I agree, even if NOK and QCOM were offset in terms of their current patents (5% to NOK on each Q chip; 5% to Q on each NOK phone), NOK still owes a lot. I agree too. I don't think there is any dispute by either party that money is owed. I think the dispute is how much.