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 159.42-1.2%Jan 16 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JGoren who wrote (59609)2/2/2007 12:00:14 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer  Read Replies (2) of 197271
 
THEY THINK QCOM MANIPULATES THE STANDARDS TO INCLUDE ITS IPR

I may have mentioned some time ago a case relating directly to this issue of manipulation. It involves a patent for reformulated gasoline, allowing the refining of low pollution gasoline without ingredients that might contaminate water supplies, etc. The patent was issued to UNOCAL, which then did a good job of influencing California officials to adopt a standard for low pollution gasoline that would incorporate the Unocal patent. California regulators adopted the standard, without being told of Unocal's interest in it.

Among those who challenged the patent (on the basis that the regulators weren't informed) was Exxon Mobil. The patent court upheld the validity of the Unocal patent, and the validity was also affirmed by the appellate panel and by the entire appellate court en banc. Then Exxon went to the Supreme Court, which denied a hearing. So the patent stands as valid.

With no other recourse, Exxon began working on federal regulators to reduce the standards for reformulated gasoline so that Exxon wouldn't have to use a refining process involving payment of royalties to Unocal (which since has been acquired by Chevron). The EPA is trying its best to accommodate Exxon, but the ultimate resolution of that issue is unclear.

But my main point is that it appears that the law does not require QUALCOMM to tell a standards setting organization that it has a patent crucial to the adoption of that standard.

Art
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