Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting 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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 178.29

-1.6%

Dec 12 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: carranza2 who wrote (54896)	9/1/2006 9:02:19 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) of 196961

And good luck to BRCM if it pursues the FRAND claim on a fraud basis. Fraud typically has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a legal standard which is a close relative of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal law. In other words, a tough thing to do under the circumstances. I dont know the exact legal standards but I have always thought that the charge that Qualcomm "misled" the standards groups was VERY weak. They had already signed an agreement with Ericsson before the standard was approved (and likely a few other companies). They also had reiterated many, many times that companies were going to pay the same rate for CDMA and WCDMA. Clearly, the companies in 3GPP should have known what Qualcomm's terms were prior to setting the standard. As I have stated in the past, I'm not sure that all of Q's practices are actually FRAND'ly (of course, this is just based on my conjecture of what FRAND might mean), but they clearly never misled anybody. Slacker

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next