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 169.27

-4.8%

Jan 12 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JGoren who wrote (75567)	3/19/2008 12:01:49 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) of 197177

As I see it, the argument that injunctions are not available if the patent has been declared to ETSI is a reach. Not only do I not recall ETSI ever suggesting anything to that effect in its materials [I may be wrong], if it did doing so would displace US law on the subject. We all know that it is a simple thing to stipulate to the appliation of the law of another jurisdiction, but when there appears to be no suggestion that the ETSI declares the seeking of injunctions proihibited, there is no way that US law allowing them will be set aside. Did I miss something, a positive ETSI declaration forsaking injunctions? If not, this should be a very easy argument to rebut.l

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next