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: Rich Bloem who wrote (91068)	4/22/2010 6:46:41 PM
From: waitwatchwander	1 Recommendation Respond to of 197240

It was my understanding that there are two royalty disputes. One is Panasonic and the other an unmentionable party. A while back Jeffery mentioned that Panasonic was not a big 3G player. I remember doing some figuring around that time and came to the conclusion that the $200M couldn't be solely Panasonic royalties but it did fit in with iphone royalty differences one could of expected during the noted period. On the $200m front, I'm surprised it is not significantly higher today. It was first mentioned last fall and another good chunk of royalties must have been either further held in trust or just no longer being paid. I just read the most recent 10-Q and it isn't clear on the assignment of the full $200M to only Panasonic. This one has been thrashed around a lot since it came up and we're NOT getting any new info so I'll just let it drop, for now. Do you have any other evidence pointing to Foxconn not being a party involved within the second royalty dispute?

To: Rich Bloem who wrote (91068)	4/27/2010 6:43:10 AM
From: waitwatchwander	3 Recommendations Respond to of 197240

After much prodding, I finally get it into my thick head that Panasonic is the likely culprit in accounting for the $200M. Their claim against Qualcomm is that they to should have been paying a lower royalty rate because their contract allowed Qualcomm use of their patents. Those issues go back to 2000 and disputed royalties would accumulate over many quarters. Engineer is right that I haven't been paying enough attention on this front. At the time of the JFTC complaint, it seemed insignificant given that Japan had mostly built out cdma and Panasonic wasn't a big player outside Japan. I failed to grasp the significance of the going back part of their complaint. The arrival of Apple being coupled with the steady decline on the royalties front is another area where my attention span has lapsed. Apple's arrival, being coincidental to royalty matters, was excellent timing and positioned them well for the second leg. The royalty regime has changed and adjustments have been built into the story. The current royalty level is the base from which we move forward and it is mostly macro economic and successful transitional efforts that determines that path.