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 155.82-1.3%Jan 23 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: hieron who wrote (61361)3/22/2007 10:47:31 PM
From: mindy1968  Read Replies (1) of 197360
 
The decision was a PYRRHIC victory for both. Although I am not happy with it, Q never made any money on the compression technology patent. I would like to believe that they did not even know that they had this patent in their extensive portfolio when they sat on the standards board - and I think that the standard was already chosen before Q participated in the latter. I regret that their reputation which was heretofore unblemished is now besmirched over this measly little dispute. But the good news is that their record at the patent office was upheld and ergo their patents or at least those patents and hopefully the rest of the portfolio is in good order. I think that if Judge Rudi Brewster allowed the validity of the compression patent as the jury had decided and then if he allowed the infringement there would have been hell to pay. So he like Judge Solomon shut down any monetary award due Q for the valid compression patent by declaring that Q mislead the standard board but dismissed the INEQUITABLE conduct charge - the most important part of the jury's decision. So be it. Let's move on to the decision of the ITC and NOKIA.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext