Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting 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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 160.19

-0.7%

1:43 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (67847)	8/17/2007 7:48:46 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) of 197233

"Disclosure" is meaningless because Nokia knew many years ago that QCOM owned said intellectual property.... An angle I pushed as a potential defense but it gets tricky, very tricky. Legally and as a matter of logic and common sense, no one is obliged to disclose what another already knows. But that is too simple a point if standards are at issue because the potential for abuse is huge. Some day, a judge or judges is going to have to grapple with the question, i.e., is an infringer who knows that undeclared IPR is being used in a standard free to infringe for that reason alone or is he obligated to do more? Does he have to report the undeclared IPR himself or is he free to infringe? Is the owner of the IPR free to man his submersibles if he believes that a potential infringer is aware of them? These are hellaciously difficult questions. I have no idea how they will be resolved except to note a trend towards uniformity and application of the rules formulated by the bodies. The courts I think will abide in large measure by what the SSOs provide for.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next