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 164.53

-0.4%

Jan 14 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

Recommended by:

Jello

matherandlowell

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (148860)	1/23/2019 2:43:19 PM
From: Doug M.	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) of 197214

JeffreyHF, this is from Qualcomm's pretrial brief. Qualcomm is saying, not antitrust, no duty to deal regardless of Judge Koh's error on her interpretation of TIA and ATIS: <<The evidence will show that players in the cellular communications industry have been licensing their SEPs at the device level since the industry’s infancy. To be sure, this Court has ruled that, as a matter of contract interpretation, two SDOs’ policies require that SEP-holders make licenses available at the component level.8 See Dkt. 931. Qualcomm respectfully disagrees with that conclusion, but it is of no moment because any such contractual obligation in no way establishes the requisite antitrust duty to deal. See linkLine, 555 U.S. at 443.>> Footnote 8: 8 The Court considered only TIA’s and ATIS’s policies; it did not address ETSI’s policy, which does not require component-level licensing.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next