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: slacker711 who wrote (148938)	9/5/2018 3:31:48 PM
From: Qurious	Read Replies (1) of 197233

The exclusion order on all new downstream products incorporating Q chipsets was what forced Q to pony up $900M to BRCM. The USITC knew that. Suppose the product cycle in this case is 5 years, would the ITC still have grandfathered in all current models in the public interest? Of course not. It would have been a meaningless order. The ITC judgment clearly took into account what it takes to enable Q to remedy/settle the infringement. Besides, how can it possibly be in the public interest to ban importation of all new model handsets which used Q chipsets? If Q did not cough up $900M to settle, US consumers would have had to live with old model handsets forever. In the event, the ITC would have failed to protect the public interest. Do you agree? The only reason it could claim the exclusion order served the public interest was because the order forced Q to settle, and settle promptly. Thus, the key to any ITC ruling should be to compel the parties to resolve the infringement. Anything else, public interest included, is hogwash.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next