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: kech who wrote (54053)	7/31/2006 7:02:59 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197300

Not having seen the motions or the court decision to grant in part the motions, it's difficult for me to draw conclusions. But a few possibilities include the fact that the court saw a reason to ALLOW these companies to intervene. The implication is that an injunction barring sale of certain equipment subject to the patent dispute would harm these companies. Granting the motion in part suggests that the companies have legal standing to intervene, at least on certain issues being litigated. Second, a ruling that prohibits the sale of equipment that may infringe someone's patents is still a drastic action because the plaintiff, if successful at trial, can demand compensation for all prior sales of equipment that infringed the patents. This was the case in regard to the Kodak-Polaroid dispute over Kodak's having infringed at least 7 instant camera patents held by Polaroid. Third, I sense that the court may believe there is a reasonable basis for a ruling upholding QCOM. If there is doubt that QCOM did anything wrong, a court would be reluctant to impose any sort of temporary injunction. This makes me somewhat optimistic, though in a case as complicated as this, one should not venture to second guess a court. Art