What Do YOU Want To Find On Mobilised?
 
Qualcomm Scoffs At Nokia's Millions Print E-mail
Written by Adam Gosling   
Friday, 13 April 2007
In the ongoing public and litigious licensing negotiations between Nokia and Qualcomm, the latest volley sees Nokia claiming it has been paying less than 3 per cent gross royalty rate for WCDMA handsets and Qualcomm countering that means it breached the 2001 agreement and has thrown the US$20 million Nokia just paid it back on the table.

Nokia kicked off the day today confirming that "until 2007 it has paid less than 3 per cent aggregate license fees on WCDMA handset sales under all its patent license agreements. This number represents Nokia's aggregate gross royalty payments made under all the numerous patent license agreements applicable to its WCDMA handsets. It excludes infrastructure related royalties and all royalty income collected by Nokia".

Further, Nokia has claimed that it still has a "fully paid up license covering Qualcomm's early patents and thus those patents are licensed to Nokia royalty free for its handsets going forward in perpetuity".

Nokia is sure the only licensing agreements it needs with Qualcomm are for the company's newer patents.

This statement to the market enraged Qualcomm  and the company fired off a statement saying it has rejected Nokia's US$20 million payment and the "accompanying multiple pages of terms upon which Nokia conditioned its payment".

"Both the amount of the payment and the terms that Nokia sought to unilaterally impose in connection with it are at odds with the parties' 2001 license agreement," said the Qualcomm statement.

"Nokia's attempted payment is a fraction of the royalty to which Nokia agreed in the arm's length negotiations leading to the parties' existing
contract and for which Nokia bargained in obtaining the extension option.

"Qualcomm is concerned that Nokia continues to attempt to mislead the industry and the investment community," says the statement.If true that would mean "Nokia has seriously underpaid royalties owed to Qualcomm under the parties' 2001 license agreement and is in material breach of the agreement.  Qualcomm will address this potential breach through legal and contractual channels".

Related news items
Newer news items
Older news items
Tag This Now:
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
Reddit
Fark