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 (76799)	5/2/2008 8:45:21 AM
From: whisperer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197069

I am not well enough versed in French Law to form as strong an opinion as you. My opinion is not based on French (or any other) law, but my own interpretation of what I have learned on this thread (including many well articulated posts by you). NOK claims that by participating in the ETSI standard for UMTS, QCOM has conceded an automatic license to NOK. Since NOK has no special standing, we must conclude that NOK is arguing that any participant to any ETSI standard automatically surrenders a license to all other participants. In my opinion, such an interpretation of the ETSI agreement would give rise to bad faith royalty negotiations. Especially since NOK also claims that QCOM cannot sue for infringement, because NOK holds an automatic license. Without the threat of injunction, it would be virtually impossible for QCOM (or any other essential patent owner for that matter) to collect a meaningful royalty. <whisperer> 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? <Stock Farmer> 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. Whether NOK had "no alternative" is irrelevant. We have to assume that the '01 SULA was negotiated in good faith by two informed parties. If NOK believed they had an automatic ETSI license then they should have raised this issue in the negotiations. According to QCOM, they did not. If NOK has evidence to the contrary, I'm sure they will produce it during trial. Whether the "all or nothing" license offer by QCOM was/is FRANDly, is a separate issue. Nokia's offer to pay is only evidence that it is willing to take a license. So if NOK has their way, they can continue offering token payments, continue using QCOM IP under their "automatic ETSI license", all the while QCOM is barred from seeking an injunction. I don't see this holding water... even under French law <g>