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: slacker711 who wrote (76274)	4/14/2008 5:18:08 PM
From: peterk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196984

This case is more crucial to Nokia than Qual. because of the formers blatant patent infringement and total disregard for contract law. Idcc is anxiously waiting for the results of this case as well.

To: slacker711 who wrote (76274)	4/14/2008 7:56:01 PM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 196984

Two tidbits from the filing that I find interesting.... - The 2001 SULA allowed Nokia to lower their effective royalty rate as compared to the 1992 SULA. - The extension lasts until 2013 and perhaps 2022 (a 2nd extension?). The fact that Q lowered the "effective" rate for Nokia makes their original press release more than a bit deceptive. qualcomm.com The release is factually true, but of course trumpeting the fact that Nokia is paying the same rate as the 1992 SULA while leaving out any return payments leaves shareholders in the dark. Slacker