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 (76732)	4/30/2008 10:19:38 AM
From: bronx	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196568

Nomura makes a couple of points. The new one is the importance of the implementation patents. Their reasoning is interesting but it's painful to contemplate the years of uncertainty before/if NOK starts paying again. But before Nomura gets to discussing implementation patents, they argue/assume that Q's bundling will not survive. This could in fact go either way. There are lots of papers on whether bundling is tying, and whether bundling/tying is anticompetitive. It used to be assumed that a monopolist (e.g., a patent holder) could only be anticompetitive when bundling, but it's not so sure anymore. Where a monopoly power (patent) is tied to other goods, it's now case by case (Microsoft), with the test being whether consumers are hurt or the market skewed. The common sense argument that any part has to be cheaper than the whole is not the issue.

To: JGoren who wrote (76732)	4/30/2008 10:36:02 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196568

Thanks for bringing us the NOMURA report. It summarizes many key issues between NOK and QCOM. One question that I had while reading the report was on the distinction between essential and implementation patents. Was, or is there any distinction made in the licensing agreement itself? If not, then I don't see why this distinction would be important, notwithstanding the NOK assertions that all or most of the essential patents are already exhausted or paid for. As to the bundling issue, I think the argument set forth by NOMURA is more straw man than anything else. Unless a licensee can show the need for only one or two patents, and none other than those one or two, it would be hard for the licensee to argue that QCOM stiffed him. Getting access to some 6000 patents, and more as they are approved, for a rate less than the going royalty rate would seem to destroy any claims concerning unfair business practices, FRAND or whatever they may be termed. In my mind, the parallel situation is seen in the control of most of the AM radio patents by RCA during a period between the 1920's and 1940's. That is, there is a long history of firms doing exactly what QCOM has been doing, and doing it in full accord with the law. Art

To: JGoren who wrote (76732)	4/30/2008 11:38:30 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 196568

JGoren, Re: Nomura- NOK v QCOM- Much thanks for posting than (I imagine serious reformating was also required). I've only gotten thru it once, & several more reads are required to digest all. I believe Nomura has not had much positive to write about QCOM in many moons, so this is considered an event of “sea change” proportions. Interesting snips tho don't know how true- "but the fact that Nokia has only been booking tiny royalties for a few quarters has moved expectations up. Forecasts now implicitly include a much lower royalty rate payable to Qcom for the foreseeable future implying downside when the dispute is finally resolved. However, long-term investors should note that unless they believe that Nokia will never have to pay Qualcomm again, Qualcomm’s shares offer significantly more upside in either scenario. This is a major reason for our positive view on the investment outlook for Qualcomm which we have today also initiated coverage with a BUY rating.