Looks like the facts of this article might not be fully accurate. Read any of the other more credible articles on the subject from other major news sources. Qualcomm says the $20M doesn't cover the terms of their agreement w/Nokia for 2Q. Doesn't look like Qualcomm intends to let Nokia "continue hawking UMTS handsets worldwide for the time being."
"Nokia's announcement today that it intends to pay an arbitrary sum for the use of QUALCOMM's patents in Nokia's WCDMA products after April 9 is an acknowledgment of its obligation to compensate QUALCOMM for the use of those patents. However, the announcement that Nokia will only pay a nominal amount makes clear that Nokia does not intend to comply with the agreed-upon terms of the parties' existing agreement or to pay the fair and established price for access to QUALCOMM's extensive patent portfolio. Nokia has no more right to unilaterally set a price than the average consumer has a right to walk into a store, take a product off the shelf, and walk out with it after leaving only a fraction of the established price on the counter. Leaving some money on the counter does not make the act any less unlawful."
Of course, Nokia's press release says they did pay enough...but who do you trust? The merchant? or the shoplifter? There doesn't seem to be any question that Nokia 'took the merchandise' and feels that they had to pay something for it... they just decided they didn't like the price (but figured they would take it anyway.)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Looks like the facts of this article might not be fully accurate. Read any of the other more credible articles on the subject from other major news sources. Qualcomm says the $20M doesn't cover the terms of their agreement w/Nokia for 2Q. Doesn't look like Qualcomm intends to let Nokia "continue hawking UMTS handsets worldwide for the time being."
Check out their press-release on it... http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2007/070405_files_arbitration_demand.html
"Nokia's announcement today that it intends to pay an arbitrary sum for the use of QUALCOMM's patents in Nokia's WCDMA products after April 9 is an acknowledgment of its obligation to compensate QUALCOMM for the use of those patents. However, the announcement that Nokia will only pay a nominal amount makes clear that Nokia does not intend to comply with the agreed-upon terms of the parties' existing agreement or to pay the fair and established price for access to QUALCOMM's extensive patent portfolio. Nokia has no more right to unilaterally set a price than the average consumer has a right to walk into a store, take a product off the shelf, and walk out with it after leaving only a fraction of the established price on the counter. Leaving some money on the counter does not make the act any less unlawful."
Of course, Nokia's press release says they did pay enough...but who do you trust? The merchant? or the shoplifter? There doesn't seem to be any question that Nokia 'took the merchandise' and feels that they had to pay something for it... they just decided they didn't like the price (but figured they would take it anyway.)