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 (145321)	10/2/2006 1:05:33 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Re : "The undersigned imposed page limits on the post-hearing brief and reply briefs to 150 and 75 pages, respectively. No limit was imposed on findings of fact, however, and Complainant filed 1,450 findings of fact, while Respondent filed over 4,000 findings of fact, and Staff filed over 250 findings of fact." I guess we all should have bought shares in companies producing paper. Jon.

To: slacker711 who wrote (145321)	10/2/2006 1:09:10 PM
From: 100cfm	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

I don't know how this was viewed as a Qualcomm positive. My interpetation is that the volume of facts and pages of briefs numbering into the thousands was just too much for the Judge to get through in the time frame initialy set and that a complex rather than a simple remedy is required. Versus the general consensus that since it wasn't a simple decision to go with the staff attorneys that Q hasn't infringed. The fact that the Judge stated it was a complex case doesn't mean it's because Qualcomm has any favourable position. It seems that it means just the opposite due to the fact that a ruling against Q would have substantial impact against a large number of third parties. The judge's conundrum seems to be, how does he enforce BRCM's patent rights without destroying innocent 3rd parties. I have to think that the "Complex" side of this equation equals a ruling against Q and the remedy needed is no easy matter to determine. Versus the non complicated side of the equation equalling the fact that Q has not infringed on 3 measly patents and that there is no need for a complex remedy. It seems simple means no infringement and complex means a remedy is needed and lots of companies and consumers suffer. Hope I'm completely wrong.