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 159.42

-1.2%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Qgent who wrote (61374)	3/23/2007 8:15:13 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) of 197243

The intent is that the JVT experts should know in advance of any patent issues with particular proposals or techniques, so that these may be addressed well before final approval. This is not a binding legal document; it is provided to JVT for information only, on a best effort, good faith basis. Please submit corrected or updated forms if your knowledge or situation changes. This form is not a substitute for the ITU ISO IEC Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration, which should be submitted by Patent Holders to the ITU TSB Director and ISO Secretary General before final approval." This is what was written in the JVT form. It provides plenty of notice. The PR is malarkey. And why should there be a distinction made between parties with relevant IPR who monitor standards creation and those who participate? If the judge was convinced that Q in good faith didn't know it had relevant IPR, the result might have been different. Hiding emails from the person who monitored didn't help in this regard. The bottom line is that this case reeks of patent ambush, a pretty sleazy way to do business.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next