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: quallover who wrote (76779)	5/1/2008 2:57:57 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197057

I have read the Answer, several times. You are suggesting that Qualcomm's answer does not deal with infringement per-se. In fact, it rests entirely upon infringement. As you observed, Qualcomm's claim is that Nokia violated the SULA. However, if you read as carefully as I did, you will note that all of the claimed violations occurred after the date at which the '01 SULA expired, if not extended. Nokia can not possibly have violated an agreement that was not in force. Therefore, Qualcomm's counter claims depend entirely on an extension of the SULA. Nokia has not elected in writing to extend the SULA, and indeed in writing has claimed otherwise. Therefore the only way the SULA could possibly have been in force for Nokia to violate would be if Qualcomm's theory of implicit extension is valid. This theory depends on an interpretation of California Law vis-a-vis continued "use" of the patents. Ergo, if you are indeed reading as carefully as you instruct me, you will see that the "use" of a patent is CENTRAL to Qualcomm's case. Hence my post. Therefore, my attention at this time is drawn to investigating the validity of this assertion, and looking carefully for the various ways Nokia can wiggle off the hook. I know full well how a patent holder can "use" a patent. A very interesting question, over which I have some uncertainty, is how does a technology implementor "use" a patent? Clearer?