We don't know what all the issues are in getting Nokia and
patent holding company Qualcomm to come to terms on a new CDMA / WCDMA licensing agreement to supersede the one expiring this April, but we'd like to see that go down soon so, you know, Nokia doesn't have to stop making phones or anything
silly like that. The companies fortunately agree, suggesting that they may call in an independent third party to arbitrate their dispute. We suspect the impasse has something to do with Qualcomm's "give us more money" versus Nokia's "no," so the arbitrator should have the trivial job of working one up and one down a bit, right?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
CLShortFuse @ Jan 9th 2007 4:59AM
I hate Qualcomm's business ethic almost as much as I hate Verizon's.
I'd hate to see nokia shoved/pressured to accept qualcomm technologies (cdam, brew & mediaflo).
i don't think you guys at engadgetmobile knew, but qualcomm owns mediaflo
long live gsm, java, and dvb-h! don't cave nokia!
xbit @ Jan 9th 2007 8:55AM
I agree, Qualcomm's business practices are anti-competitive and incredibly bad for the consumer.
They gain IP by either patenting existing technologies (CDMA was used by the military long before Qualcomm started to take an interest) or by buying existing companies. Their solutions lock manufacturers and carriers into Qualcomm's equipment and technology, before bleeding them dry.
It's no wonder that Nokia are refusing to pay and it's no wonder that developing nations are migrating their IS-95/CDMA2000 networks to GSM.
iPanic @ Jan 9th 2007 10:52AM
I don't understand this Qualcomm bashing really i don't.
Qualcomm charges people for using their technology? so what? Isn't that how business works, they develop a technology (or buy a company that has technology they want) and then charges others for using it, makes perfect business sense.
Nokia is the evil on in this case! why does the whole world have to give into sub-standard products (nokia) just because they are the giants in the market. I personally think Nokia should go back to being a lumber-mill, and if they insist on using Qualcomm's IP then they should be prepared to pay for it.
As for the Media Flo comment above. yeah it is true QCOM own it but at the same time it's superior to DVB-H as it supports multiple formats on the same device rather than forcing the world to use Nokia standards, so that nokia can then impose their rule and their anti-competative ways.
Matt @ Jan 11th 2007 12:58AM
Qualcomm has filed a lawsuit against Nokia based on the fact that Nokia has called Qualcomm on their BS licensing practices. Nokia makes their own CDMA chipsets which perform better than Qualcomm's chipsets when used with other Nokia hardware. What is so wrong about that?!?!? Nokia CDMA chipsets are FREAKING AWESOME!!!! This lawsuit was filed the day after Nokia and a few other cell phone makers filed a complaint with the EU regarding the fact that Qualcomm refuses to pay royalties on WCDMA chipset sales. Nokia and various other companies contributed a lot to the development of WCDMA and the only reason WCDMA was selected as a "standard" was the fact that Qualcomm stated they would "play nice" and not institute some of the same licensing practices they did with CDMA. They should be paying Nokia royalties just on the shear fact that the WCDMA technology relies heavily on GSM patents Nokia holds. And as to the comment about Nokia's Anti-Competitive ways and them imposing their rule... What planet are you from!?!?!? Nokia doesn't force the rest of the world to use their standards. Nokia devices support more file types and standards than most other devices out there. Before you post, please review the facts to make sure you don't come off looking like an imbecile.