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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mmeggs who wrote (15633)	9/28/1998 2:31:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

mmeggs - But if they really felt their position was that strong, wouldn't they just deny it and move on? Why engage in the argument at all if you feel their is no argument? Not to take the side of 'the side of darkness' <g>, but even if Ericsson truly does not believe the Q's patents will hold, they would be forced to continually deny them as long as Qualcomm continues to assert them in order to sell their system. The only exception would be if Ericsson thought it was purely a nuisance suit, but I don't think anyone believes that. Clark

To: mmeggs who wrote (15633)	9/29/1998 2:49:00 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>Rajala, that still leaves a couple questions unanswered. > >1. Why the offer to trade patents? Or the implied offer to pay "low" >royalties? Offer to trade patents? Where is that? "Low" royalties, you refer to "fair and reasonable"? How would you phrase this if you wanted to sound diplomatic? >They think Dr. Jacobs is a swell guy? I don't know what they think of Dr. J. but "swell" probably is not the first thing that comes into their heads. >2. Why does nearly every statement regarding W-CDMA contain a denial >that Q IPR is infringed? Maybe they think so. >3. Why is Q being harassed and pressured to give up the IPR (for >"reasonable" royalties) if no one really thinks it is needed for >W-CDMA anyway? I have not seen one document by ETSI or Ericsson or any other sniveling European outlaw wanting IPR for W-CDMA or admitting Q having any. CDMA1 is different. >I see what you're saying in that E would need to make some kind of >statement regarding Q's IPR involvement - denying it. What are you talking about? They deny it. >But if they really felt their position was that strong, wouldn't they >just deny it and move on? That's pretty much what they are doing. - rajala