Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarksterh who wrote (618)	8/6/1999 9:46:00 AM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 13582

MOT v. Q; Q v. MOT: declaratory judgements and hazardous waste That Q is seeking a declaratory judgement by the [California Superior?] court as to Q's rights and MOT's obligations under the PLA strongly suggests to me that the clauses of the PLA governing (i) remedies for breach and (ii) termination do not afford either party [read Q] the right, upon alleged breach by the other [read MOT], to terminate all licenses granted by the non-breaching party [Q] while continuing to benefit as licensee under licenses granted by the breaching party [MOT]. Were it otherwise, Q would be counterclaiming for (i) summary judgement [not likely to be granted if there is a question of fact as to the existence of a breach under the PLA] pursuant to a provision of the PLA or (ii) enforcement of that remedy under the PLA. While a declaratory judgment motion is not in the nature of equity (a suit other than for money damages), it does call on the court's discretion (i) to decide if it will grant a motion for declaratory judgement and (ii) in this case, perhaps, to interpret what the parties intended in the event that one party was in breach while the other not. Courts are generally reluctant to do either of the foregoing. This court will push hard, imo, to get the parties to settle. If the consideration for the PLA was nothing more than the cross grant of licenses by the other, the termination of one does not (in the absence of a provision to the contrary in the PLS) necessarily mean the termination of the other, and this is what Q is seeking, which on its face could be supportable under principles of contractual interpretation. My opinion, therefore, FWIW, is, to the surprise, probably, of few on this thread, that Q's motion is tactical in nature, and that the court, before it is required to decide Q's motion, will do its utmost before being forced to decide to grant or not the relief requested by Q. The liklihood that the Q license granted to MOT will be judicially declared terminated is, imho, extremely low. Clark, when MOT sued Qualcomm over a design patent for a flip phone...does not seem to fit too well into the category of "'technically or commercially necessary' to make and sell certain CDMA and Dual-Mode wireless products... [Agreed] So this begs the question of whether MOT was also suing over some additional patents which do fit into this category and would thus be a breach of the PLA and allow Qualcomm to file the latest complaint. Or, on the face of the MOT suit, taken by itself, the flip phone issue appearing to be outside the cross licenses granted under the PLA, Q would appear to be on shaky ground trying to shoehorn this question into the ambit of the PLA (this, of course, totally separate and apart from the validity or invalidity of MOT's claims). Brihack, thanks to (or opprobrium on) you for resurfacing this! <gg> Best regards, Clark. Steven