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%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (61414)3/24/2007 10:53:11 AM
From: Qgent  Read Replies (1) of 197244
 
That is precisely the issue addressed in the Exxon-Unocal case I discussed earlier. In fact, Unocal lobbied the California regulators to adopt a pollution standard that could be met by a patented process invented by Unocal, WITHOUT TELLING THEM that Unocal had a patent on the process. It is significant that Exxon lost at trial and before the appellate panel, and before the appellate court en banc, and finally before the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case and let stand the appellate affirmation of the lower court.

My question is, was this standard created by a SSO that Unocal withheld disclosures from, or did they just tell the Regulators (you guys should use this standard)knowing they had legal patents in place?

If the latter what disclosures did they really owe them?

Qgent
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News