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: Maurice Winn who wrote (76803)	5/2/2008 12:41:34 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197063

I can't speak to Delaware or CA contract law, but one of the first briefs I ever wrote involved a modification of a Texas contract that provided modifications could only be in writing. Didn't matter: Texas case law said parties can modify their contract in parol despite the contractual requirement for it to be writing. Assuming CA law similar, the argument is the parties can choose to have their conduct modify the "in writing" requirement. Again, if I were Qcom I would look for implementation patents used, which are only referable to the contract. As I understand the Nokia payments, it tendered only once, maybe twice. Qcom sent the first one back and said there were numerous conditions, which as a matter of law, does not consitute a valid tender of moneys due. Furthermore, Nokia's payment (I believe by its own statements) covered only what it thought it owed for the license--which at the time I thought was only for the essential ETSI mandated license. The fact that it put lots of conditions in that would have created a new contract or a modification of the alleged continuing contract. The conditions, which we don't know, could support Qcom's position. It was nothing more than an offer of a new contract. Qcom's pleadings refer to the use of patents and by the generality, I believe Qcom will rely on more than essential patents only.