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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (76743)	4/30/2008 10:54:41 AM
From: engineer	Respond to of 197060

yes ,but RCA was only in the US....so we did not have EU to deal with..

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (76743)	4/30/2008 4:27:07 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 197060

Of course, we don't know what the licensing agreement provides, and neither does Nomura. However, Nomura does confirm that Nokia is paid up on certain early patents. We don't know what those are, but I assume they are the essential cdma patents. Nomura did some analysis and calculations based on two different cutoff dates for the paid up patents, 1997 and 1999. Regardless of whether the paid up patents are essential or non-essential, it seems to me that the cutoff date for paid up patents controls. I guess my answer is that the distinction doesn't make a lot of difference. However, Nomura deals with it in terms of the cutoff date, which has to be in the license. Its theory is that Nokia is using non-essential patents; if any are not paid up, then its Katy Bar the Door on infringement suits to raise the royalty rate up to basically where it is now, or maybe more. I think you have hit a point. One of Nomura's theories is that some of Qcom's non-essential patents may be so fundamental that they are almost impossible to get around. Let's assume a hypothetical: Qcom declares patents X and Y to be essential; Nokia voted against patents X and Y being part of the standard; Nokia uses patents X and Y. Nokia cannot now turn around and say it is an essential patent. I like the idea of Qcom pointing out that Nokia uses the non-essential patents and therefore cannot complain it has been harmed by bundling the patent pool. But, Nokia wants to say it used the patents because it had a right under the bundled license but doesn't want to anymore. It wants separation. If Qcom can show Nokia has continued to use them, Nokia is in a very difficult position to argue that it has been harmed. So the argument of continued use, works for Qcom is several ways.