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

To: The Reaper who wrote (144503)	8/25/2006 10:31:52 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 152472

this game is over and QCOM rules the world kkirby--One can never second guess a court. In this case, we have several different courts, some of which may be less than impartial or less than knowledgeable about IP issues, or have certain criteria for judging that are simply off the wall. IMHO, the various issues involving QCOM look as though QCOM can and should prevail, but one can't be certain, for the following reasons: 1. Do we, or anyone on this discussion really understand the BRCM claims well enough to know if QCOM may have infringed, knowingly or not? 2. Do we know with any degree of certainty whether the patent ambush issue being claimed by Nokia has any merit? Or did QCOM give adequate warning about unlicensed and illegal use of its IP for GSM/GPRS/EDGE applications? 3. Do we know whether an unfair business practices claim can be held valid if the court or commission narrowly defines market demand to include only CDMA related applications? 4. Do we know whether the ITC might accept its staff analysis and rule in favor of a ban on the import of equipment containing QCOM chips, or the chips themselves? The Wall Street Journal in a recent editorial blasted the role of the ITC in deciding any patent infringement claims on the grounds that such a ruling is protectionist in nature and should preferably be decided in a court dealing with patent matters. Well, I agree completely (the first WSJ editorial I can remember agreeing with in over 20 years), but who knows how the politically influenced ITC might rule? After all, if QCOM chips are banned from equipment sold in the U.S., beneficiaries might include, in addition to BRCM, companies such as Texas Instruments. All I'm saying is the weight of evidence favors QCOM in all these matters, but one cannot assume a court or administrative agency will rule that way. Art