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 (76795)	5/1/2008 3:53:00 PM
From: whisperer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197065

After reading Nokia's brief and the communications between Nokia and Qualcomm, it is apparent that these cheques are its estimate of what it might owe to Qualcomm under the ETSI licenses which Nokia asserts it holds. I'm not a lawyer, but I have read both briefs and I don't buy the (implicit) ETSI license argument. If in fact NOK did have such a license, it did so all along, so why did it agree to the terms of the '01 SULA? Use (with or without payment) is, in fact, Qualcomm's argument behind extension. Cheques are therefore irrelevant. The question on the table is the degree to which Qualcomm's argument might be leaky. QCOM is arguing that NOK, by it's actions, extended the '01 SULA. My point is that without the payment by NOK, it's harder for QCOM to prove "use" of it's IP. I mean, why would NOK agree to pay for something they don't use? -W