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 159.42-1.2%Jan 16 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Qgent who wrote (61393)3/23/2007 10:35:50 AM
From: mindy1968  Read Replies (1) of 197247
 
It seems the Judge did NOT cut the baby in half but in a Solomonesque decision made both parties unhappy. I am glad that the part that Q won was that they were NOT guilty of inequitable conduct in the patent process. The rest although stupid and aggravating, would have turned the whole video industry upside down with Q claiming royalties on that compression patent. So Judge Brewster wisely - and only because he had something to hang his hat on with the hidden emails - even though it was after the standard was written and unsolicited, etc. - that he was able to deny Q enforcement of its patent. Is the headline that Q ABUSED the SOS a BRCM headline or did the JUDGE actually say that?

At any rate, the juice may not be worth the squeeze to appeal this case. I think Q should just move on. Let's keep our fingers crossed that the ITC does NOT ban the phones with those infringing chips in them. Was BRCM guilty of NOT advising the standards body which wrote the EV-DO standard of their power patent that is used when NOT near a cell tower? Maybe Brcm did the same thing Q is accused of doing but willfully. Q's is a huge gaff but unintentional I believe.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext