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: straight life who wrote (18372)	11/16/1998 10:06:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Taichi: Thanks for the article. Now allow me quote Ericsson's Keith Shank and direct a straightforward question, for the 1,093rd time, to the Nokia/ERICY camp: <<"Keith Shank, director of strategic marketing and business development for Ericsson, said that the intellectual property dispute is unprecedented. "Most companies that are international and have done business for quite some time understand that you should deal with each other in a fair and open matter," Shank says. "IPRs are routinely traded (between companies). They are are not held for blackmail type purposes." >> Setting aside the inconvenience imposed on Ericsson by QC's intransigence, can someone please explain to me how it is possible to "blackmail" somebody by refusing to license them something that they do not need? Please...I'm just a slow-witted guy, not clever and extra-literate like Tero...but golly gee Batman, if ERICY doesn't need QC's IPR, what exactly is the contentious point? Dumb and drooling in Naples... Gregg