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: JeffreyHF who wrote (147595)	1/12/2007 9:15:41 AM
From: Stan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Jef, I've been in enough jury trials to know that jurors look for easy explanations to complicated issues. They are no experts and the subject matter in a case like this is overwhelming. Carranza's point is more likely. Defense will hammer this inconsistency home at every point. The thought that he has changed his mind in the past year will be meaningless to the jury since he will look like he's been bought by Q. I can only hope that the second patent in question in the trial will have a chance of obtaining a one for one split by the jury.

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (147595)	1/12/2007 11:48:54 AM
From: BDAZZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Look at the entire paragraph: >>Under cross-examination of Richardson, Lee focused on one specific process used to compress digital video. Richardson had contended under direct testimony that the process is the same in both Qualcomm's patented technology and the H.264 industry standard. "But Lee pointed to a passage in Richardson's book that said the process in the H.264 industry standard has “fundamental differences” from the process described in Qualcomm's patents."<< Many "processes" make up a technology. To me this says he cherry picked one, but advoided the rest.