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: carranza2 who wrote (144550)	8/27/2006 3:25:28 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

<Can you imagine Q trying to assert now against anyone other than Nokia, after saying it wouldn't? > That's annoying; I wrote a rant, did a spastic click and lost an excellent diatribe. Recasting posts is always difficult for some reason. Here goes. I have missed a lot, so perhaps missed QCOM saying they wouldn't. I had seen them say that "for now" they wouldn't. Which doesn't mean forever. It makes sense to say "for now", because if the decision goes against QCOM, then any other case would be unlikely to succeed. It would be a waste of everyone's time and money to be prosecuting others until the Nokia decision is given. It's not as though GSM/GPRS/EDGE sales will be stopped by a judge until the main case is heard, so there isn't particular time pressure. Better to take the time, get the Nokia case done, then work from the biggest and baddest alleged intellectual property thief down to the small-time inadvertent cases who might have more sound defences and reasonable excuses than the evil-doing Nokia. There must be some legalese for "Just go for Nokia and hold the others in limbo until clarity on the worst of the worst is established". I can imagine that a judge might even consider somebody firing wildly in all directions as irresponsible and abusive of judicial process and committing an offence under the 'Blah de blah de blah blah anti-SLAPP competition prevention summary offences act of 1973" While it's not the same thing, thefirstamendment.org is the sort of thing whereby a big tough company could legally attack a swarm of competitors, without having a good basis to do so, with the intention to prevent competition rather than to defend their property. A little company might prefer to keep out of the market rather than risk legal harassment by the big brute. I can't see why QCOM would say they aren't going to assert and pursue others. That would not be FRANDly. It all depends on the timing and rules of assertion and claims I suppose. No doubt there are arcane rules surrounding the matter. The biggie is Nokia. The rats and mice don't matter so much. 33% market share for Nokia and as high as 40% a year or two ago. That's the main one to deal with. Mqurice