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: whisperer who wrote (76798)	5/1/2008 5:12:05 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197066

I'm not a lawyer, but I have read both briefs and I don't buy the (implicit) ETSI license argument. Fair enough, neither does Qualcomm. However, in their response they treated the whole argument as "legal conclusions to which no response is required". I am not well enough versed in French Law to form as strong an opinion as you. 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? Qualcomm's Answer raises this question too, but it is easily answered. Until the expiry of the '01 SULA, Nokia did not have any license to the [redacted] (presumably CDMA/IS-95) patents which were not part of the ETSI package. Nokia can reasonably argue that they had no alternative but to take the "all or nothing" deal since they required the [redacted] patents and had no license and could not afford injunction. Pretty hard for Qualcomm to dispute this. After all, that's been this thread's refrain pretty much from the get-go. My point is that without the payment by NOK, it's harder for QCOM to prove "use" of it's IP. Nokia's offer to pay is only evidence that it is willing to take a license. They have said so in their brief. They explicitly reserve all other defenses. In the arcane world of patent prosecution, taking a license is not admission that a patent is valid or infringed. It is merely admission that the licensee's expected opportunity cost of mounting a defense to the threat of prosecution, net of any savings realized, is less than the cost of the license.