"Paid Up" ... these licenses have maximum aggretate lifetime amounts?
"Paid Up" is a specific phrase. I have seen Nokia use it over and over again, without explanation. If there are no provisions for an maximum aggregate lifetime amount under these licenses, what can be gained by using this phrase.
If a contract is expired, and Qualcomm has agreed to generally license on FRANDLY basis, then how can Nokia get away with fabricating, out of thin air, a concept that a patent can be "paid up."
Qualcomm obviously had an interest in licensing its property at an attractive rate in order to entice the market to adopt. Qualcomm recognized the potential future value, and thus refused to license patents on a one-off basis, and instead contracted only on a "patent pool" basis. The decision to contract on this basis, and to settle for a lower rate, was obviously done so that the company could enjoy the future financial benefits of successful implementation of the enabled networks.
That "patent pool" structure is central to the determination of what is "Fair & Reasonable.
The simple and central fact is that Qualcomm licensed a "patent pool." This is integral to determining FRAND.
It is outrageous that Nokia has been permitted by courts and governmental bodies to waste so much time. How courts and government bodies can accede to this charade is a serious misuse of the trust placed in them by the public.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
