Replies to post #20010 on Qualcomm Inc (QCOM)

[slacker711]

I'll have to try and dig up the filing, but I thought that one comment that Qualcomm made was that their power control mechanism was simply an option for the handset manufacturers. They could choose to use other methods....of course, none of them do so.

Hmmm, so rather than have Qualcomm come up with an alternative method, they could have the individual handset manufacturers attempt to do so. All of the methods might be different which would make BRCM's legal challenges quite a bit more difficult. That would take the legal burden off of Qualcomm....but I'd be pissed if I was a handset vendor.

Slacker

[demi22]

DR-I got the same impression. I believe Qual wants to drive a stake into Brcm's heart. If they get the veto or win on appeal Brcm had no negotiating leverage to receive favorable terms for a Q license. Qual. would never publicly admit they had a work around while requesting a veto or filing an appeal they would look like idiots for wasting everyone's time and money. However Brcm needs a license from Q to get into the game. Even their most recent press release harps on the FRAND nonsense that has been perpetrated by Nokia et al. What did Brcm get financially from the ITC's action-zip. They get basically nothing from their Santa Ana win. They still don't have a license and they're not going to get one if they continue to go down the path Paul J suggested they were going down. Brcm has shot off all their bullets. Qual. has reduced the # of lawsuits that can financially hurt them and the only remaining obstacle is Nokia who should be concerned over the recent ITC ruling.