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: JeffreyHF who wrote (148860)	9/3/2018 10:13:49 PM
From: lml	5 Recommendations Recommended By AlfaNut lrnin manning18 matherandlowell voop Respond to of 197214

FTC is claiming that since . . . interpretation of obligations made to 3GPP and ETSI, under the controlling French law, are irrelevant, and U.S. courts should independently define FRAND obligations under U.S. law without regard to the intent and understanding of the overarching FRAND commitments made by Qualcomm to the primary international bodies. Agree. FTC appears to be overreaching here. Can't see how FRAND can have one meaning in one jurisdiction, and another meaning in another when interpreting and/or enforcing licensing agreements that transcend jurisdictional borders in practically all instances.

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (148860)	9/4/2018 12:47:46 PM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 197214

This how Q describes the relationship between 3GPP and ATIS. qualcomm.com

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (148860)

1/23/2019 2:36:32 PM

From: Doug M.

5 Recommendations

Recommended By
manning18
matherandlowell
Prophet of Profits
recycled_electron
VinnieBagOfDonuts

Respond to of 197214

Having now read the Motion, the FTC is claiming that since the TIA and ATIS are located in the U.S., the interpretation of obligations made to 3GPP and ETSI, under the controlling French law, are irrelevant, and U.S. courts should independently define FRAND obligations under U.S. law without regard to the intent and understanding of the overarching FRAND commitments made by Qualcomm to the primary international bodies. That seems specious and back-asswards to me. The derivative and collateral commitments made by Qualcomm to TIA and ATIS cannot be, and were not intended to be, more stringent than those made to ETSI and 3GPP, but rather their interpretation must be determined by French law, the interpretations of the relevant international bodies, and decades of industry custom and usage.>>

JeffreyHF,

Good points!

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (148860)	1/23/2019 2:43:19 PM
From: Doug M.	2 Recommendations Recommended By Jello matherandlowell Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

JeffreyHF, this is from Qualcomm's pretrial brief. Qualcomm is saying, not antitrust, no duty to deal regardless of Judge Koh's error on her interpretation of TIA and ATIS: <<The evidence will show that players in the cellular communications industry have been licensing their SEPs at the device level since the industry’s infancy. To be sure, this Court has ruled that, as a matter of contract interpretation, two SDOs’ policies require that SEP-holders make licenses available at the component level.8 See Dkt. 931. Qualcomm respectfully disagrees with that conclusion, but it is of no moment because any such contractual obligation in no way establishes the requisite antitrust duty to deal. See linkLine, 555 U.S. at 443.>> Footnote 8: 8 The Court considered only TIA’s and ATIS’s policies; it did not address ETSI’s policy, which does not require component-level licensing.