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 148.83+1.1%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ohohyodafarted who wrote (61592)3/28/2007 10:12:49 AM
From: Jim Mullens  Read Replies (2) of 197563
 
oh, Re: BRCM v QCOM / Injunction, and "QCOM's silence on this matter is most distressing, and leads one to believe that we are between a rock and a hard place if an injunction is issued.

Please tell me why Q has not said anything more about a work around."

Again>>>

1. The Q supports the use of the injunction in true patent abuse cases.

2. The BRCM ITC case remedy appears to provide for the use of the injunction, apparently even in minor patent infractions.

3. If the injunction can be used in this situation, it would even appear more appropriate against NOK re: GSM/GPRS/EDGE theft and even more so in WCDMA products.

4. The mere fact that the injunction remedy is considered , and a QCOM “loss” in the BRCM skirmish, establishes the precedent to win the war against NOK via the injunction use.

5. And, as Jay points out-

5.a. “ The patent in question will probably not even stand up to legal patent scrutiny”,

5.b. “This is the perfect patent case to take before the full commission because if QCOM loses the case, there is probably nothing really at stake (because they could simply de activate the power saving option)”

Or,
6. The Q already has a design around solution that avoids their use of the BRCM patent in any event if the injunction is granted.

If the above is correct, it’s a win / win for the Q in the long run, with perhaps negative PR in the short term, for it establishes the basis for using the injunction against NOK.
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