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: Gregg Powers who wrote (16469)	10/14/1998 7:10:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg: Welcome back! I will take back the 5% royalty rate. I read that here on the thread. All patents are defensible. All it takes is a few attorneys and a courtroom. Why should the Q reduce the X% royalty rate? As a show of good faith in negotiations. If, as the evidence suggests, QC's IPR position can block ERICY's promulgation of a W-CDMA standard through the ITU, then it is Ericsson, not Qualcomm, that has the major business issue. Please show me the court case where QC's IPR was proven to cover the W-CDMA case. There isn't anything. Ericsson has also stated that they have the necessary IPR. Oh yeah, see my post about the rake receiver? Ericy has 19 patents, the Q only 15. You suggest that IS-95 "has no support", yet it is being deployed in over thirty countries How many MORE countries is TDMA/GSM in Gregg? Going from 1% market share to 2% market share is 100% growth, however you only have 2% market share. Isn't TDMA/GSM market base 100 Million people?(I am not sure on this fact, I think Tero spouted it off) Well, thank you for the counselor in training comment. However, the Q is in an interesting predicament. How about a patent no. Gregg? The Q is not in the strongest position. Just b/c their patents don't mention high bandwidth applications doesn't mean they are enabling for high bandwidth. dave

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (16469)	10/14/1998 7:32:00 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 152472

Gregg: You suddenly seem to accept the concept that QC has a defensible IPR position. In all of my posts, I have maintained the same argument. All US Patents have the presumption of validity untill otherise proven. I even gave a pretty detailed two posts about the patenting process in the US. Only speaking on prosecution matters, no Interference practice or Appeals, though. I bet in that opinion you got, those attorneys spoke about enablement, didn't they? However, in acknowledging this, you suggest that QC should give ERICY a preferential rate because...uhh...well...gee...they asked for it? I merely suggested a give and take. The Q license its IPR to the Europeans in exchange for a converged standard, said license being reduced. In most to nearly all negotiations, there is great difference between the first offer and the accepted offer. Gregg, you are assuming again with those If statements. Just as I have. The Q isn't in the strongest of positions. On the other hand, they aren't in the weakest; they have patents. Isn't it remotely possible that they understand the company's legal position Legally, everyone has an understanding. You have an understanding, I have an understanding, we all have an understanding. An understanding is like an opinion, both personal and legal. I have met with and worked with the Q's legal personnel. That is all I can, and will, say about that. Now, with regards to CDMA and support. Even Bartyles and James wanted support. 16 M subscribers is support. However TDMA/GSM has much, much more. Plus an open market in the US where TDMA can be sold, and a locked market in Europe and parts of Asia, where the Q (as of right now) cannot sell. Gregg, I am disappointed that I don't even get "Regards", but I do look forward to your response. dave