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 177.78

-2.2%

Jan 9 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Eric L who wrote (61335)	3/22/2007 5:59:39 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) of 197157

If QCOM's handling of these patents is considered an ambush, then the latest ruling goes against a long precedent of cases that suggest otherwise. In addition to cases mentioned by QCOM in its brief, there is the famous case of the holder of the variable speed windshield wiper patent going after General Motors for not realizing it was infringing. He won against GM. Evidently this was not patent ambush, even though it was several years before the patent holder informed GM (and later Chrysler and Ford) of the infringement. There must be some grey area here that I don't know about. Art

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next