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 164.40-0.5%9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: mindy19683/22/2007 8:40:18 AM
  Read Replies (2) of 197194
 
It is mind boggling to me that Qualcomm whose lifeline is dependent on their patents and vigorously goes after infringers, is asking that in the public interest that this BRCM patent be allowed even though the ALJ found that it is being infringed by Q. Q should adamantly be on the side of punishing infringers. BUT

In the oral presentation by Q in the synopsis for the ITC hearing on March 21st, I will quote: " Broadcomm's assertion that the statute requires the Commission to issue its requested exclusion order and a cease and desist order in this investigation because the Commission has found a violation is INCORRECT under the law and the facts of this case. The record reflects the absence of an evidentiary basis necessary to support an exclusion order or a cease and disist order under Commission and Federal precedent, which precludes the issuance of such remedies."

That is the crux of what Qualcomm should be concentrating on instead of this red herring that the public interest would be harmed albeit true for all the various reasons. Has it been proven in a court of law that Q infringes this patent? Where is the evidence? Where are the witnesses? Where was the trial. Is the ALJ the judge and the jury? Where is the precedent? What is the law of the land? Lawyers please advise.

Also if there indeed is infringement, then it can NOT be considered WILLFUL since it seems this patent is NOT included in any standard nor is it licensed by anyone else to my knowledge. Therefore hopefully Q has a design around or can at least turn off this power thing of BRCMs and even if the ITC does issue an exclusion order and or cease and desist order, they will be worthless. And why has BRCM not offered to license this patent in a FRANDly manner? The whole thing is ridiculous.

Qcom should change its approach and reveal the bypass or its ability to turn off of this infringement because the juice is NOT worth the squeeze - If the ITC rules for BRCM, public sentiment regardless of FACTS will be against QCOM the INFRINGER! And public sentiment is where QCOM needs to improve its image. I will state again as I have many times in the past that the Public Relations Department of Q STINKS!

All comments welcome and TIA
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