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: Rajala who wrote (15680)	9/29/1998 8:50:00 AM
From: Greg B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala & Dave, UWCC and NA GSM Alliance suggests, with bias, that CDMA has just shifted the other way in the "swinging of the pendulum". Other than now muddying the IPR waters, can either of you demonstrate evidence that this is the case? Any comment on Philips legal counsel's ability to judge the validity of Qualcomm's IPRs as they related to W-CDMA: QUALCOMM and Philips Enter into License Agreement Covering cdmaOne and W-CDMA SAN DIEGO - March 30, 1998 - QUALCOMM Incorporated (NASDAQ: QCOM) and Philips Consumer Communications LP (PCC) today announced that they have entered into a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) royalty-bearing, cross-license agreement together with Philips Electronics NV. Under terms of the agreement, QUALCOMM granted PCC a license under certain of its patents to develop, manufacture and sell CDMA subscriber units including those for cdmaOne applications, and for the proposed European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Universal Mobile Telephone System (UMTS) standard being referred to as "W-CDMA." Philips granted QUALCOMM a license under certain of Philips' patents for its own use and for sale of CDMA products. The agreement also amicably settles litigation between QUALCOMM and U.S. Philips Corporation which addressed the validity of certain of Philips' patents and sought a determination that QUALCOMM's products are not infringing. "We are pleased to be able to settle our differences with Philips and expect to continue the important positive business relationships that the companies have established over the years," said Harvey White, president of QUALCOMM. "With Philips' resources and reputation as a manufacturer of high-quality consumer products, we expect Philips to make a major contribution to the overall worldwide growth of the CDMA market." Added Terry Vega, PCC's executive vice president, wireless products, "PCC is a technology neutral company that is committed to advancing all of the current infrastructure standards and we believe that this agreement will aid us in further establishing ourselves in the important CDMA technology sector."

To: Rajala who wrote (15680)	9/29/1998 9:00:00 AM
From: Ramus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala, It sounds like you didn't read the whole item. Just in case.....please read and ponder all of below. It's all on the ETSI website! >>Incorrect claim number 5: "Faced with a protectionist European industrial policy and ETSI's non-objective standard setting process, Qualcomm has been forced to fall back on its IPRs to protect its current customers and its position in the next generation of wireless technology" ETSI acknowledges that Qualcomm holds CDMA IPRs. In this context the following observation is particularly relevant: "With respect to proprietary status, AMPS, NA-TDMA, GSM and IS-41 are essentially in the public domain. In the case of CDMA, Qualcomm holds strong intellectual property rights, which it asserts through licensing agreements with an array of equipment vendors……(the growing number of telecommunications standards) covered in part by IPRs has played a major role in the transformation of standards organizations from forums of experts seeking consensus on technical issues into battlegrounds for the assertion of competing commercial interests". ("Standards for personal communications in Europe and the United States", David J. Goodman, Harvard University, April 1998) ETSI Rules of Procedure (Annex 6, the ETSI Intellectual Property Rights policy) establish that "when an essential IPR relating to a particular standard is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions(…). This is the tribute ETSI members pay to non-discrimination, transparency, harmonization and avoidance of unnecessary obstacles to trade. On August 6, Qualcomm notified to ETSI that "(Qualcomm) is not prepared to grant licenses for the proposed W-CDMA standard in accordance with the terms of Clause 6.1 of the ETSI interim IPR policy". The development of the third generation standards within ETSI will thus progress according to this decision and ETSI's Rules of Procedure. << Rajala, if you read the above and read Clause 6.1 then basically what they are saying is that Qualcomm does have IPR that is necessary to W-CDMA. Below is Clause 6.1 and 6.2 relating to IPR. 6.1 When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent: MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE; sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED; repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and use METHODS. The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate. 6.2 At the request of the European Commission and/or EFTA, initially for a specific STANDARD or a class of STANDARDS, ETSI shall arrange to have carried out in a competent and timely manner an investigation including an IPR search, with the objective of ascertaining whether IPRs exist or are likely to exist which may be or may become ESSENTIAL to a proposed STANDARD and the possible terms and conditions of licences for such IPRs. This shall be subject to the European Commission and/or EFTA meeting all reasonable expenses of such an investigation, in accordance with detailed arrangements to be worked out with the European Commission and/or EFTA prior to the investigation being undertaken. Rajala, reading Clause 6.2 I would think it likely that ETSI has carried out an investigation of Qualcomms IPRs and conluded that it was necessary to inquire of their intentions. Afterall, why should ETSI say anything if they don't know what their own position should be? And if they do know, wouldn't it tend to support the validity of Qualcomms IPRs regarding W-CDMA if ETSI asked what Qualcomms intentions are? I copied these directly from the ETSI website. Notice how they capitalized the word ESSENTIAL. W.