SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (76835)5/3/2008 9:09:11 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 197248
 
I don't think Stock Farmer's analysis is necessarily correct.

The ETSI policy call for the IPR holder to 'undertake' to offer on a FRAND basis. Nothing in the policy suggests that the user of the IPR is given the right to use the IPR without a pre-existing license. I think such a radical interpretation of the policy is wrong as, if correct, it would have probably been made explicit rather than implicit through some vague incorporation of French law.

It is so important that I think it is impossible that it would have been left unsaid.

Moreover, I don't read the stipulation of French law as necessarily regulating relations between holders of IPR and users. I read it as regulating the relations between ETSI and its members. In fact, there is language deferring the intra-member relations to commercial negotiations, implying that there is no ex-ante license whose terms simply need to be negotiated.

If the Nokia interpretation of French law approach were to be correct, I daresay that the Nokia interpretation means that ETSI hoodwinked everyone involved with this surreptitiously inserted aspect of French law. I am certain that was not ETSI's intent.

Something as drastic as what Nokia suggests would have been made explicit.

Nokia is cooked. It's arguments reek of sophistry.

May be time to get back into Q.