C2, being a registered international legal expert, hereinafter, ultra vires is my caveat emptor decision:
Finding Number 1.
Judge Brewster found QUALCOMM lost the case. Consequence = Broadcom gets away with it. Broadcom costs to be paid by QUALCOMM since they brought the case, forcing Broadcom to incur reasonable legal expenses.
Finding Number 2.
Judge Brewster invented a QUALCOMM plot to conceal a patent [which is not possible to do], ambush the whole industry to collect money or undue licensing agreements or restrict trade, which they did not do. They didn't even bring a case against Broadcom until they got into a fight with them because of Broadcom attacking QUALCOMM because they couldn't get a licence to use QUALCOMM's amazing patent wall.
No penalty against QUALCOMM. There was no plot to "ambush" the industry.
Finding Number 3.
Brewster made up that QUALCOMM "out of the blue" brought the case with no attempt to license etc. The Honourable Judge was apparently not aware that there were no negotiations of any consequence as Broadcom had set its heart on destroying QUALCOMM's worldwide licensing position by a greedy demand using the USA courts over a plop [poxy little obvious patent] to hold QUALCOMM hostage.
Judge Brewster is acting for Broadcom in their plan to hold the USA hostage to plops.
Contrary to Brewster's idea, the hostage is QUALCOMM, not Broadcom or "the industry".
QUALCOMM's law suit was not "out of the blue". It was part of the ongoing attempts by Broadcom to gain some leverage using the unreasonable force of the courts and ignorance of juries to attack QUALCOMM over an accidental infringement of a few plops.
A pro forma "negotiation" prior to filing the law suit would have just been gratuitous and disingenuous. The point of it was to show Broadcom that there were a few skeletons they had rattling around in the closet.
Judge Brewster is acting in conspiracy with Broadcom to hold QUALCOMM hostage with a few plops.
Finding Number 4.
The witnesses gave reasonable answers such as "Nobody from QUALCOMM attended." A consultant is not "somebody from QUALCOMM". Judge Brewster drew too many conclusions from the responses of the witnesses. A longer questioning rounding out the thoughts and memories of the witnesses would have arrived at a more accurate impression of what went on than taking a reasonable answer and pushing it into the form of something it wasn't.
Very often, people want me to give a very simple answer to a question which has many dimensions. It's frustrating to give silly little answers which are not useful, but then get a life of their own as though they are truth. To then be held accountable for falsely derived conclusions is unreasonable.
No consequence for the witnesses if the quotes given were the sole evidence of perjury. The quotes do not amount to perjury.
Finding Number 5.
The discovery process was not stonewalled. Broadcom was unduly broad in their requests. All the discovery process showed was that there was at least some monitoring of the standards process by QUALCOMM people. The impression given during court proceedings was that there was no participation, which is difference from attendance. I have attended many things and have even been a member, but have not participated and have even been in opposition to a standard being developed and was instrumental in killing a re-refined oil standard which was under development
I have attended and participated and attempted to kill European diesel fuel standards. I killed the Eurograde 95 standard.
Attending is not participating and does not necessarily mean one is willing to have one's intellectual property used and abused in a monopolistic anti-competitive trust [which is what the original trust-busters aimed to stop].
No consequence for requiring proper search criteria.
There's, more, but it's breakfast time.
Overall, no consequence. But also, of course Broadcom was in breach.
I have spake,
Mqurice |
