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: slacker711 who wrote (145286)	10/2/2006 10:34:14 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Slacker, re: BRCM v QCOM and injunction barring sales, and – “Broadcom is going before the ITC stating that Qualcomm chipsets are infringing and that the chipsets AND all downstream products which incorporate them should be barred from importation. The ITC will have the option of just banning Q's chipsets or including downstream products. Qualcomm is going before the ITC saying that Nokia's handsets are infringing. If Q wins, the ITC has only one possible remedy....banning the importation of Nokia's handsets.” Inasmuch as the Q is the virtually the only mfg of CDMA EV-DO baseband chipsets with NOK throwing in the towel, an ITC decision banning those Q’s chipsets is tantamount to barring all EV-DO “downstream products” ( I would think) . I recall previous discussions on these boards suggesting that an injunction banning products is currently a very remote probability. I’m suggesting that if the BRCM judge invokes such an injunction, the remote probability is thus removed, and a precedent has just been established that could be applied in the QCOM v NOK action and therefore more than a “zero impact” to Q v N results from such action. Further, I recall IMJ supporting the use of an injunction in IPR actions.