The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range

QCOM 181.05

-3.5%

Oct 28 3:59 PM EDT

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Rich Bloem who wrote (4937)	3/28/2009 9:19:34 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) of 9128

Re: Prior art. This is an area touched on by the recent Supreme Court decision in KSR v Teleflex. The issue was whether a method for adjusting the height of the accelerator and brake pedals in a vehicle with electronic engine controls was different enough from a mechanical linkage dating from the days when carburetors were in vogue to be treated as novel and non obvious. QCOM was critical of the ruling and subsequent patent reform legislation because it would inhibit innovation by raising the standard on what is truly novel and non obvious. Perhaps what QCOM believes also relates to the ITT challenge; namely that what QCOM thinks is truly novel turns out to be too obvious to meet the court's new standard. If so, it would be a matter that would ultimately have to be decided in court. It would be interesting to see the details behind the ITT claim, and whether the QCOM patent cited is or is not invalid. Even if the QCOM patent were invalidated by a court, it would be difficult to claim treble damages against a company that had been granted a patent for the uses claimed in the patent. If a tobacco company prints a warning on each pack of cigarettes that smoking may be hazardous to your wealth, it's pretty hard to win a lawsuit against the company (which has been the case over the years). Similarly, the clean bill of health afforded by the granting of a patent presumably protects the company from an accusation of intentional infringement if the patent is subsequently invalidated. This would be especially true when the patent cites the very prior art that might invalidate the patent. Has everyone lost their common sense? Art

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next