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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range
QCOM 177.78-2.2%Jan 9 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: pyslent who wrote (819)8/14/2007 8:48:13 PM
From: slacker711  Read Replies (3) of 9132
 
My guess is that the video compression patents were part of the same general stategy. Qualcomm may have decided that they would not pursue patent infringement cases in areas that were not core to CDMA, but intended to keep ancillary IPR as weapons to be used only if infringing companies ever became "trouble-makers." As such, Broadcom was the first (and only) H.264-compliant vendor to receive this particular shot-across-the-bow.

This strategy is effective only as long as there is no obligation to be non-discriminitory. Once FRAND rules are found to apply, the IPR becomes useless as a means to selectively exert power over a troublesome company. This was the motive behind Qualcomm's decision to not declare to the JVC, IMO.


I pretty much agree with your entire post.

The problem Qualcomm has is they must have thought that "participation" in a standards body would require active involvement in forming the standard (ie voting and proposals). It would seem that Brewster's ruling would mean that passively monitoring the standard through attending meetings would be enough. If this ruling sets a precedent, Qualcomm is going to run into major problems with their GPRS/EDGE suits.

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