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 159.42-1.2%Jan 16 3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (67916)8/18/2007 6:05:46 PM
From: kyungha  Read Replies (1) of 197280
 
I am not a lawyer at all. So, i may be wrong that if original patent was not obvious the subsequent patent/claims with continuation in part should not be obvious either. QCOM said it will appeal H264 video compression case. I think they knew existence of emails and talked about it publically that those emails did not matter. They were sent unsolicited mostly. Q seriously bungled in the litigation not presening those email. Or, just admitting extant of them would have been sufficient to argue against invalidity. I hope I remember things correctly.
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