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: limtex who wrote (824)8/14/2007 11:45:24 PM
From: slacker711  Read Replies (4) of 9132
 
There is no evidence, not a scap, not one scintilla of evidence that there was any intelliegent plan whatever behind Qs decsion behind Qs participation. If you can see one please point to in the judgement.

Forget the video patent case....and move on to the GPRS/EDGE case. Do you really think that Qualcomm didnt know whether their IPR might be applicable to those standards?

Qualcomm's core competency is radio interfacees. It goes beyond the realm of possibility that they were ignoring the development of GPRS and EDGE. They had engineers at the meetings and I am sure that they spent quite a bit of time analysing the standards...both for IPR purposes as well as for their own future development of chipsets using GPRS and EDGE.

If you believe that the engineers at Qualcomm are even remotely competent then you have to believe that they made a consious decision not to disclose their patents to the standards committee. It is my view that they must have believed that their was no legal requirement for them to do so as long as they didnt actively participate (or they never would have had engineers at the meeting). Unfortunately, Brewster disagrees with that interpretation of their obligations....

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