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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David E. Taylor who wrote (82786)10/9/2000 5:29:46 PM
From: Peter Sherman  Respond to of 152472
 
arghhh...Bill Dalglish surfaces, again --



To: David E. Taylor who wrote (82786)10/9/2000 5:30:30 PM
From: Cooters  Respond to of 152472
 
David, the litigation in question was resolved several years back, not last year. I'm thinking either 1994 or 1996. Anyway, the IDCC/QCOM issue has been hashed out in painful detail several times on the QCOM thread(s). Someone else can hopefully provide a link to the starting point of one of those discussions. I could give you a brief review, but it would not do the topic justice.<g>
Coots



To: David E. Taylor who wrote (82786)10/9/2000 6:44:57 PM
From: w molloy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
David T re Dalglish

From the QCOM website (search keyword interdigital)

qualcomm.com

Mr. Lupin was a partner with Cooley, Godward, Castro, Huddleson and Tatum where
he focused on intellectual property litigation in the telecommunications, software and biotechnology
industries. Mr. Lupin represented QUALCOMM in its 1994 patent infringement litigation with
InterDigital Technology Corporation and joined the Company following the successful conclusion of
that case.

I tried searching IDCC's site (http://www.interdigital.com/) but got a busy indication.
You could search the yearly report circa 1994 and 1995.

From memory, the dispute was settled was out of court for a one off payment of(4?? 7??) million dollars.

This Neopoint prospectus refers to the '94 agreement
sec.gov



To: David E. Taylor who wrote (82786)10/9/2000 7:36:15 PM
From: engineer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 152472
 
reply briefly

1) it was settlled in 1994. Q paid IDCC a few Million to give them a perpetual paid up royalty free lic to their patents.

2).. Bullshit PR on the part of IDCC.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News