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 177.78-2.2%Jan 9 9:30 AM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: slacker711 who wrote (148913)9/4/2018 6:21:49 PM
From: Qurious3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Art Bechhoefer
JeffreyHF
voop

  Read Replies (1) of 197153
 
Thanks for correcting my mis-use of injunctive relief v. exclusion order. That misspeak aside, my point remains:

(a) why would Intel lose the iphone socket if there's an exclusion order? The remedy to the exclusion order is a simple agreement to pay Q for use of its IP. In the forgettable Q v. BRCM episode, did BRCM not also seek an exclusion order on Q silicon? And was Q not forced to pay (and back pay) until Q can design around BRCM's IP?

(b) even if Intel loses the iphone socket, why would that knock them out of 5G? Mediatek et al do not have the iphone socket. But they manage to stay in the 5G race;

(c) and why would this exclusion order be of public interest? There are plenty of viable alternatives to the iphone on the market. Neither the courts nor USITC has any obligation to protect an infringing company from suffering adverse effects of such infringements.
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