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 138.64+1.7%2:26 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: seti who wrote (67629)8/15/2007 9:40:31 AM
From: Stan  Read Replies (2) of 197623
 
The quote was from something I wrote yesterday. And, yes, I fear that an injunction will be granted. All posters on this Board have concluded that Broadcom cannot show "irreparable damage", a usual prerequisite for the granting of injunction relief. The reason for this is that it has been shown that money damages can satisfy any wrong in the use of the affected chips.

However, there is still another basis in the law for the issuance of an injunction. That is the need to avoid a multiplicity of law suits. Here, every time Q sells a chip with the Broadcom patent in it a violation occurs. Without the injunction B would be faced with having to file a law suit for damages every time that occurs. The law does not require this. Ergo, my concern that an injunction will issue now that a jury has found the infringement.
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