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: JeffreyHF who wrote (54640)	8/17/2006 6:24:01 PM
From: engineer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196499

so if we define Frand terms on this IPR, how close does it get to Jim M's $100B number? And if they did infringe, I cannot see how the chancery court could allow the license to go backwards from the ruling. It would seem that NOKIA has admitted the IPR exists and that they used it. Even wihtout triple dmamages, this has to be a huge number. 100-200M handsets at $5-$10 a pop is still a big number.

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (54640)	8/18/2006 9:37:03 AM
From: talksfree	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196499

I do limited litigation, and no patent work. My gut feel, however, is that an ambiguous press release will have little if no evidentiary value in a complicated patent case. The technical aspects of the case will have a much greater value. I just don't see an administrative judge effectively awarding a summary judgment in favor of Q based upon the press release in light of all the other issues and evidence that will be presented. It doesn't pass the smell test.