No sensitive nerve on Motorola - just pointing out your wrong spelling. You didn't know Irwin either so I wondered how strong your understanding of the patent position really is.
Yes, you wrote the second and third paragraphs, confirming what I said.
Since I know so little about patent processes in the world, you should be able to dispose of my arguments easily. Why don't you try? Or are you only able to make personal comments, thereby showing an inability to reason. Go on, give it a go.
I say the lawyer cost at a couple of hundred dollars an hour won't represent much compared with the value of cdmaOne and cdma2000 to QUALCOMM, which is measured in the hundreds of millions or billions. Anyway, L M Ericsson will suffer the same cost, but with the probability of losing and thereby paying the lawyer fortune for no gain. You say I'm ignorant and that is your analysis of QUALCOMM's position and cost of lawyers. You obviously have no position on which to stand so thereby can be dismissed as a loser in the debate.
So far, for a self-proclaimed expert, you haven't been very convincing. I'm here to learn and understand, not to be a mindless defender of QUALCOMM, so I'm all ears to ideas and reasoning. Got anything other than ad hominem arguments?
Meanwhile you are lowering the tenor of the debate.
I'll have to ignore you unless you smarten up a bit!
I accept your point that unexpected things can happen in patent cases, but as investors we have to deal with most likely outcomes. Is L M Ericsson really going to throw it all on the chance of an unexpected thing happening? Doesn't seem like sound business judgement, unless such a case is really cheap, but then your argument about the lawyering being expensive is incorrect. You can't have it both ways. No knowledge of patent processes needed. Just reasoning.
Mqurice |
