Not only had the emails been retrieved in preparation for trial, IMO the Q lawyer lied to the judge about their existence because I find it impossible to believe that Q's attorneys did not know of these emails sent/received to and from one of its main witnesses until a week before trial. If they truly did not know about them, something incomprehensible to me, the lack of preparation and incompetence is absolutely monumental, and I don't think that trial team, though ineffective and sloppy, was that bad. They lied to the judge, IMO, and there's no better way to lose a case than to get caught lying to the judge.
Fair enough but unproven, however should these emails have ever seen the light of day to begin with? These emails came into Qualcomms possession unsolicited.
In my opinion receiving unsolicited emails doesn't prove ones participation in a SSO.
Further, I don't believe it's disputed, that when Qualcomms scientist started monitoring the SSO, it was only after the May 2003 standard had been set.
Mr. Ludwin confirmed
through his deposition of August 17, 2006, that at least four Qualcomm employees had
attended at least ten JVT meetings beginning from December 2003 to July 2006.
At this point the standard is already written, they have already proven that they never submitted a proposal or contributed to the standard in anyway prior to the May 2003 standard being written.
Court FINDS by clear and convincing evidence that Qualcomm waived its rights to
enforce the ‘104 and ‘767 patents against H.264 products by its silence in the face of a
“clear duty to speak” to identify to the JVT its IPR related to the development of the H.264
standard, specifically the ‘104 and ‘767 patents.
A clear duty to speak from unsolicited emails, and no other participation for the May 2003 standard ?
It appears there are two versions of this standard, the 2003 and 2005, it seems to me Qualcomm acted ethically regarding the standard written in May 2003.
If they acted lawfully for the 1st version, the patents should certainly be enforceable.
For all we know the topics being discussed and problems trying to be solved during the drafting of the second version may not have dealt specifically with these two patents in question.
Carranza, I appreciate everything you bring to this board, and in no way am I trying to be argumentative and or disrespectful.
Qgent |
