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: Stock Farmer who wrote (76753)	4/30/2008 9:36:37 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197056

If I was a betting man, and I am, I would bet Nokia is able to prove that they do not have an extension to the SULA, therefore they are either infringing on unlicensed patents, or they have a license. Nokia's view is that they have a license, through ETSI, for each and every patent that they actually need, but for no others, subject to some uncertainty in the amount that Qualcomm desires that they pay for these patents and no others. Qualcomm's brief indicates that the '01 SULA represents the offer, accepted by Nokia, that stood in place of Qualcomm's obligations to ETSI, thereby satisfied. This is not an insubstantial argument, IMO. FWIW, I pretty much agree with all of the above. I dont find Q's arguments about an implied extension to be at all convincing. OTOH, I think they are on much more solid ground with their position that the '01 SULA satisfies a FRAND offer. They win, in that Nokia may indeed be found to be without a license on some of their patents. However, their next step needs to be demonstrated proof of infringement, against which Nokia still has all of the available defenses. If Nokia wants a prolonged and potentially expensive fight, this is exactly the kind of victory Qualcomm shareholders do not need. One complicating factor in analysing the situation is the continued existence of the extension. As long as that is in place, Nokia has almost all of the leverage in their demands for a lower rate. OTOH, once the extension expires, it does open up the possibility of a higher rate. It would involve years of litigation, but Nokia will no longer have a virtual no risk position (as they have had for the past 3 years). Slacker

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (76753)	4/30/2008 10:25:16 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197056

That victory the shareholders do not need is precisely the victory that Nomura says could up the royalty rate substantially above the rate for essential patents only. Nokia has say that it is wlling, ready and able to pay for essential patents or it will be subject to an injunction. ETSI does not give a right to a license for all patents Nokia needs; only essential patents. Conduct generally can amend a contract even when amendments are required to be in writing, at least in Texas. The reason is that conduct suffices for the writing requirement of statutes of frauds or contract. Don't know about CA law, Del. law or French law.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (76753)	5/1/2008 1:54:06 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197056

Isn't "not paying money owed" a fairly significant breach of contract? <it is the violation of this non-assert clause, counter to the provisions of the implicitly extended contract, which gives rise to first breach of contract.> Normally, in contracts I have been involved with, if the party which is supposed to be paying money stops paying, their counter-party starts squealing and calling in the judiciary. Not paying money is about the most basic breach of contract if continuing to use the thing for which payment is supposed to be made. I could lease an Airbus 380 on a 20 year deal, then stop paying the lease after a couple of months, but keep flying it with paying passengers. I could post the owners $20,000 a year as the new contract price and they can like it or lump it. <Nokia's brief indicates that the contract explicitly contained a clause which required an extension to be in writing. > Being an international legal expert, I can say that if two parties proceed with a course of action in a voluntary exchange of value, then even if they were previously operating on a written agreement which says "any renewal must be in writing", the previous terms continue in force apart from any change agreed as implicit in the continued actions of each. When one party breaches the terms of the written agreement, and the other party does not agree to the new terms unilaterally asserted by the party breaching the agreement [namely failing to pay money owed and that non-assert stuff], then either the previous contract is enforceable as though continued, or there are damages payable and a cease and desist injunction to be issued. Also, if one party [in this case Nokia] has breached certain legal operating principles, they lose anyway, namely Nokia has dirty hands and their feet stink. Mqurice