SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 147.19-3.6%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: slacker711 who wrote (56591)11/2/2006 10:03:06 PM
From: carranza2   of 197498
 
Lupin steadfastly believes Q will get an injunction. His reasons sound good, but I have not read the recent Supreme Court case. Lupin's comments:

I will take that one. We think we will have utterly no problem meeting the four-part test. You're talking about a situation of a company that had a license that has been paying royalties, acknowledges the applicability of our patents in the most sincere way by paying large amounts of money for them, and then declines to renew and deliberately infringes. I think under those circumstances we are going to have very little difficulty in getting an injunction in meeting the test. I would be happy to expand upon the legal specifics of that test at a later time. I think it would take more time than we have now. I'm planning on being in London as well. So either Steve or I would be happy to address that there.

And here is a link to the eBay case:

supremecourtus.gov
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News