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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Clarksterh who wrote (52151)	5/17/2006 12:02:19 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Respond to of 198053

Clark, Re: "Does anyone know the larger ITC Process picture?" See my prior post. Altman discusses it in some detail during the analyst day Q&A

To: Clarksterh who wrote (52151)	5/17/2006 12:40:33 PM
From: slacker711	Respond to of 198053

Here are two articles that seem to do a pretty good job of going over the ITC process. buildingipvalue.com ipfrontline.com The case still needs to be ruled on by the Administrative law judge, but assuming that he follows the findings of the staff, Qualcomm can appeal the decision to the full commission. After that it goes to US Court of Appeals. They can also appeal to the President to veto an injunction. Something else of interest....it seems that monetary damages arent among the ITC's possible remedies. It would seem to be an injunction or nothing. Being a court of equity, the ITC can impose strong injunctive measures upon reaching a decision after a Section 337 investigation but does not award money damages. If I read the findings correctly, this would stop Q from importing WCDMA or DO chipsets, but VZ and PCS could still sell their 1xrtt products (there is no mention in the document of the MSM6100/MSM6150/MSM6000). Slacker

To: Clarksterh who wrote (52151)	5/17/2006 12:54:02 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 198053

I've spent some time on the ITC's site looking at the public record that can be seen, and can offer this: Substantive hearings [which commenced earlier in the year] on infringement appear to have been completed. Some of the transcripts are public and accessible at the web site, but they are incomprehensible to me. Most of the testimony was naturally confidential. Unless anyone has a lot of time on their hands and is a patent expert, there is probably little to be gained from reviewing the public portions of the testimony. In any event, the public portions of the Investigative Staff's brief I think tells us a lot of what we need to know as investors. I don't think that the hearings were Markman hearings designed to determine the relevant claim. I say this because the ITC's Investigative Staff's brief suggests a finding of infringement, not something I think generally takes place in a Markman hearing. Take this with the usual dosage of NaCl as I'm no patent expert. The matter is at a post-hearing briefing stage, which includes the ITC's staff brief supporting BRCM. All parties have filed their post-hearing briefs, and they are all confidential. The ultimate ruling can be appealed to the Federal Circuit. If the Judge goes along with the Staff, a finding infringement on the two patents seems likely. You have already concluded that, but I suppose the reasons are a bit too technical to relate here. Remedy phase scheduling has taken place, and witness lists, etc., are being exchanged on that aspect of things. Many handset manufacturers and carriers have intervened in the case and are being heard. I haven't read their statements. However, I imagine they support QCOM's position that excluding chipsets manufactured abroad, one of the remedies available to BRCM, is not in the public interest. I suppose BRCM will argue that exclusion is not the same remedy as an injunction and that the recent eBay case does not apply to this proceeding. A fair guess is that the carriers and the handset makers will join Q in arguing that exclusion is the functional equivalent of an injunction and that the same rules applied by the Supremes in the eBay case ought to apply here. A company that is very aggressive with its own patents is being given a dose of its own medicine. How far this will go is impossible to say, but it is likely that BRCM's need for a license will moderate its settlement demands.

To: Clarksterh who wrote (52151)	5/17/2006 1:52:04 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 198053

Re: Markman hearing. The purpose is to allow both sides to put their best foot forward in order that a judge could give a preliminary view on the chances for success of either side. This procedure is intended to avoid the huge costs of a formal trial before the parties commit their resources, perhaps unnecessarily. In cases where both sides may be at fault for one or more patent infringements, the outcome generally is in the form of some type of cross licensing agreement, which may or may not include payment of royalties or other fees. As has been generally agreed upon by many people on this thread, ever since the earliest of the Broadcom actions, the main objective appears to be to obtain some type of agreement with QCOM, in which BRCM would have to pay little or nothing to gain access to QCOM patents, without which they couldn't sell anything. Watching the market action in both stocks today, I am inclined to believe that (1) BRCM doesn't really have all that good a case, and/or (2) the investment community doesn't understand enough of the patents in question to make any kind of intelligent analysis. Uncertainty in this atmosphere may actually protect QCOM share price from dropping even more, since there appear to be a lot of people interested in buying more stock near the current price. Art