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 (76870)	5/4/2008 3:02:37 PM
From: whisperer	Respond to of 197253

whisperer, we are converging. Perhaps... I still think we disagree on the fundamental issue, but I'm certainly enjoying the discussion. You and I agree that it is reasonable that a party holding patents relevant to ETSI is required to offer an irrevocable license on FRAND terms. Yes. I have to say that I would have preferred, in hindsight, that QCOM had not participated in the UMTS standard, and, as Maurice pointed out, forced the Europeans’ hand. We have seen the power and monetary value of even a single non-essential patent in the BRCM case. Next baby step: if that offer is accepted, then what?? We all live happily ever after? Wishful thinking I suppose<g> In my mind, acceptance comes with obligations as well. The implementor had the choice of accepting or challenging the FRANDliness of the offer. Since they accepted, they now are required to pay the royalty rate specified in the offer. Wouldn't the party accepting the offer have an irrevocable license on FRAND terms? Sure, within the context that both parties continue to fulfill their obligations.