The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: slacker711 who wrote (858)	8/15/2007 11:01:43 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) of 9132

I agree that the Dell and Rambus cases do not directly apply. However, I think they are indicative of where things are going. Rudi relied primarily on the ITU and JVT disclosure obligations, which were binding on Q. I think a fair reading of them, especially the ITU's, obligated Q to disclose. Recall that both disclosure regimes applied. I agree that we'll have to disagree on whether Q knew of the obligation to disclose as I see very little wiggle room in the ITU's and the JVT's disclosure obligations. These are good faith, best efforts obligations, as is set forth in detail at pp. 6-8 of the opinion. Q's knowledge of the obligation to disclose is set forth in equally good detail at pp. 13-16. Finally, that there were IPR issues concerning the patents is specifically stated by a Mr. Yun. See p. 19 of the opinion. See also the Kilpatrick to Raveendran emails mentioned at p. 21 which specifically mention the Digital Cinema patents and the JVT in the same sentence. It appears absolutely indisputable that the IPR issue was on Q's mind at the time. Given its knowledge and the good faith, best efforts obligation to disclose, any doubts about disclosure or nondisclosure should have been resolved by doing the prudent thing - disclose - especially as it became apparent that its IPR was being incorporated into the standard. From what I can see in Brewster's opinion, Q will have a lot of difficulty in trying to convince an appellate panel that Rudi got it wrong. The unfortunate thing is that if there was any doubt about the correctness of Brewster's ruling, such doubt is going to be looked at by the appellate panel in the dubious context of the Q's lawyers litigation misconduct. There is no telling on which issue the appellate judges will focus, but the misconduct issue is a lot sexier and may be seen as more important as it deals with the integrity of the judicial system. As I see it, the case was loser even if the misconduct had not occurred.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next