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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (146674)	11/29/2006 12:33:03 PM
From: quartersawyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Art, if we assume Q's patents to not be frivolous, there's an advantage to a harder test for patent validity. But that could lead to a multitude of cases to retest validity. What do we want to come out of this case? Assumptions for bargaining?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (146674)	11/29/2006 12:46:30 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

If the Supreme Court upholds the appellate court decision, it will, in my view, be more difficult for QUALCOMM to claim prior art, an essential part of a patent claim. [from your PM] Are you saying if someone adds to a patent, this decision means that the rights of the original patent holder are no longer valid? That doesn't make sense. I'd buy that the new patent holder may gain some rights over the original patent holder but can't see the original rights being invalidated. All this patent stuff just makes my head spin. So tell me how I've messed up interpreting your comments? Thanx