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 153.80

+0.5%

10:45 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: mindykoeppel who wrote (68748)	9/13/2007 9:38:31 AM
From: talksfree	Read Replies (3) of 197407

I find I am never very good at anticipating third party motives for doing, or not doing, something, so I don't think you can read anything into the fact other carriers haven't struck their deal with BRCM. On a separate issue, I also find it interesting that the court did not issue the stay based upon a determination that there would be a likelihood of success on the "obviousness" issue. What has been troubling me is that Q abandoned that defense at the ITC level, so they can't raise it on appeal, and Verizon has dismissed its appeal (as a result of its license agreement) in which Verizon had raised the obviousness issue. I do not know if anyone else has raised it, but if not, Q may not have that issue to rely upon on the appeal. If that is the case, the PRIMARY basis for a final ruling in favor of Q will not exist. Procedurally, if BRCM does go back to the ITC to try to enjoin the other carriers, all of them can raise the obviousness defense, but that means more years of uncertainty.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next