InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 16
Posts 101
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/17/2003

Re: rmarchma post# 97448

Wednesday, 03/09/2005 12:46:15 PM

Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:46:15 PM

Post# of 433025
Could all this talk be more about Ericy than QCOM?

From the Neopoint SEC filing below, QCOM licensees must not challenge ERICY with their infrastructure IP. ERICY must have a fairly good deal with QCOM due to the cross-licensing. As such, NOK does not want to be in a position to pay more to QCOM (for CDMA or WCDMA) than ERICY for infrastructure and then also have to pay IDCC for handsets.

" 5.10.3 Non-Assertion Against Ericsson. The sublicense granted to LICENSEE under Section 5.10.2 above shall continue only so long as LICENSEE and its Affiliates do not assert, either in litigation or by a direct communication, any Essential Patents for CDMA Applications against Ericsson's CDMA infrastructure or test equipment products and LICENSEE does not dismiss such litigation or withdraw such assertion or offer a royalty-free license under such patents within thirty (30) days after QUALCOMM's receipt of notice from Ericsson of such litigation or communication."

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent IDCC News