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 (76294)	4/15/2008 2:23:22 AM
From: BoonDoggler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196961

I have read Qualcomm's response, and I would say that I would not want to be the Nokia officer who decides 'Yes, let's take a chance in the Delaware court and see what the good Judge decides.' . I really don't think that the Nokia BOD, etc. is sitting around telling themselves 'the worst that can happen is we have to pay money'. If the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count VI that Nokia has materially breached that (Nokia imagined) license, or if the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count IX that Nokia has rejected and terminated its right to elect the extension provided by the SULA, or if the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count X that Nokia has breached its obligations under the SULA by failing to pay royalties in a timely manner, and Qualcomm is entitled to terminate the 2001 SULA in all respects, or if the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count XI that Nokia has materially breached its obligations to offer contracts to Qualcomm licensees as required by the contract, which entitles Qualcomm to terminate the 2001 SULA in all respects, and to recover damages, or if the court decides in favor of Qualcomm on Count XII, Nokia has materially breached the covenant of good faith, thereby entitling Qualcomm to terminate the 2001 SULA in all respects and to recover damages, and Qualcomm then decides to split the company, and Nokia is obligated to license their IPR to chipmaker SPINCOII, and Qualcomm has now exhausted its obligations to offer any deal to Nokia for 3G IPR, then it's just "<yawn>, we'll just have to pay some more money", huh, Slacker? I would not want to be holding Nokia stock if this thing goes into court in July.

To: slacker711 who wrote (76294)	4/15/2008 10:26:35 AM
From: ohohyodafarted	Respond to of 196961

I agree with you in that respect Slacker. However I don't think it will get that far. I think that when NOK sees they have their back against the wall with respect to the strong arguments that QCOM has presented here and when the case seems to not be going their NOK's, NOK will come to the table. I think the whole thing is stupid. If it came to logerhaeds, wouldn't both parties be entitled to license each others patents under FRAND? So the question is what is FRAND? It is whatever the parties in negotiation decide it is. If QCOM decides they are willing to pay a going rate for NOK patents,and NOK won't pay the going rate for QCOM patents, then Q gets a license for NOK IP and NOK can sit back without a license, infringing and getting sued by QCOM. Seems to me that QCOM has been forthright, honest and businesslike in it's dealings with NOK. NOK has a reputation for trying to bully it's way to favorable agreements. But this time they have met up with a company that will call their bluff and will not cave in, because QCOM is in the right and NOK is in the wrong. I feel this all goes back to the basic premis that Good will triumph over Evil. Let's hope that my feelings about this are correct, and that there is still justice in this world where the good are rewarded and the bad are punished.