SiliconInvestor
     Advanced Search   [ sign in ]

register
Sponsor		  register
Register

 Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  
To: Eric L who wrote (78763)7/23/2008 5:42:48 AM
From: Raglanroadie3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 117481
 
Who knows Eric you may be right. If I'm lucky I'll prove you wrong.

"Most of their GSM patents are for GSM phase 2 and still evolving GSM Phase 2+, not GSM Phase 1"

If this is true then what is wrong with someone saying "if Nokia only recently developed at patent portfolio of its own"?

From a Google search I cite:

"and in 1982 the Conference of European Posts and Telegraphs (CEPT)...In 1989, GSM responsibility was transferred to the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI), and phase I of the GSM specifications were published in 1990."

and of course there follows:

"Commercial service was started in mid1991,"

Now when exactly was the original Q-N license signed? I'm not going to check but wasn't it 1992?

I said "what were the FRAND rules back then (GSM) instead of the ones as they pertain to WCDMA?" To which you said "ETSI had no IPR policy until 1993" Do you not then support my line of thought when I question the reasonableness of using WCDMA FRAND rules when commenting on GSM cabal actions as they pertain to GSM?

In the spirit of things I will not Google when Nokia joined the GSM body. The basic thrust of my question IMO still holds true. Specifically, that if Nokia were an early member of the GSM or group snuggly then a possible area of collusion or manipulation may be found in that a company with limited IPR was allowed in to a club that resulted in them getting preferential IPR treatment that other would be competitors did not enjoy. In addition, I would ask whether the lack of FRAND obligations as we currently know them allowed for arbitrary licensing requests of others who like Nokia were not that strong in IPR as you well pointed out. Nokia does not seperate out their licensing revenue because their's has always been a defensive model. To defend one's position is to deny the enemy their position. In Nokia's case to deny one's enemy their position is to deny them the market.


Is this spin?

"Most of their GSM patents are for GSM phase 2 and still evolving GSM Phase 2+, not GSM Phase 1 or prestandard patents like Motorola's original patents were, so they have considerable time to run, and they have the largest portfolio of declared essential GSM/GPRS/EDGE patents"


So if NOK was an early member of the MEN but their patents came later why were they a member of MEN to begin with? Also, do you have any idea of what Nokia's position on the transition to GSM2+ is as it compares to their GSM2 patents? I wonder if they were less in 2+ than in simple old GSM2?

Cheers to you Eric.

Charles
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public Reply | Prvt Reply | Mark as Last Read | FilePrevious 10 | Next 10 | Previous | Next  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQ
Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.