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: JGoren who wrote (76322)	4/15/2008 6:15:00 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196986

That is the problem with FRAND. While supposedly preventing patent holdup, it actually has enabled Nokia to negotiate in bad faith with the belief that it can continue to demand that it has a right to a FRANDly license no matter how bad its conduct might be. Its second fallback position is, until the end of December, extend the licensing agreement and claim no harm, no foul. The Law of Unintended Consequences is alive and well. Is it not reasonable to infer that an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing underlies the FRAND standard? I don't see how one could adhere to the intent of the standard w/o comporting with the covenant of GF & FD. If the covenant were found, which I think likely, then it would appear NOK would forfeit its original right to demand a FRANDly license. With rights comes responsibilities. If NOK has not carried out its implied responsibilities in bargaining of FRANDly terms, I would think a court might find that such right might be forfeited. Is the right to FRANDly terms absolute? And if not, under what conditions may they be forfeited?