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: ohohyodafarted who wrote (76292)	4/15/2008 12:37:44 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196961

I think QCOM presents a very strong argument, based on facts that we have all known for a long time, which are based on the actions of NOK, and things they have said and done. All of these things have been discussed at length here and are incorporated in what I believe to be a very well thought out and cohesive strategy that may very well turn the tables on NOK's attempts to screw with QCOM. I might have missed it, but did Qualcomm ever claim that terminating the SULA would leave them with rights for Nokia's patents? Absent that, we will be left with a stand-off. Yes, Qualcomm will file suit over WCDMA patents but Nokia will simulatenously file suit over CDMA/WCDMA patents. We would eventually end up with a negotiated settlement. It might not be great for Nokia, but it wouldnt be armageddon. Slacker

To: ohohyodafarted who wrote (76292)	4/15/2008 6:11:44 AM
From: ihavenoidea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196961

o.k. I took your advice and read the whole damn thing. I will stipulate that Qcom makes a strong argument. But for it to be conclusive in my mind, and to be FRAND, I need to read Nokia's complaint, and you should too(!). However, and notwithstanding, Qcom's complaint raises several questions detrimental to qcom relating to two facts: 1) Why on planet eMars, did Qcom agree to give Nok a (unilateral)right to exercise an extension to the SULA beyond the expiration date of the agreement? Why?! I've never heard of such a thing; without adequate consideration, that is. And therein lay the problem. Disputes on agreements are construed against the author (and I assume as the Licensor, qcom is the author). In light of that, nok's position should have been that qcom was providing a concession (consideration) to nok to use qcom's IP' royalty free, between April '07 & Dec. '08. The quid pro quo for qcom was to solidify a commitment from nok to extend the agreement beyond December 2008 thru 2013/2022 at qcom's "usury" rates. The intent as Nok would see it: this was qcom's way of rewarding Nok as a good customer for the past 15 years (1992-2007) and sugar coating the hard pill of a high rate that Nok would have to digest quarterly (a real belief from Nok's perspective) for the next 5-13 years(2009-2022); costing the latter, and providing the former, with billions and billions of USDs. A smart move by qcom in the macro sense. Lacking words by Qcom in the agreement to the contrary, that would have been my position if I were Nok. And I would have stuck to it. Seems fair to me. Especially if I was on the jury. 2)Qcom gave nok a rate that was better than "most" everyone else. Why wouldn't Nok have had a most favored nation type clause in the agreement? Shame on them if they didn't. Even if they didn't; if I were Nok, I would take the position that FRAND dictates that qcom's Number one payer of royalties should automatically be charged no more than the percentage payed any other royalty paying customer. You may not agree with me, and i might not be any big time, high folutin', sophisticated, $1000 plus, an hour, attorney. But on the other hand, I'm no, Mr. Nodownside, either. ihavenoidea.