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: John Carragher who wrote (147608)	1/12/2007 10:00:14 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

It happens. My theory is that egos get in the way of proper preparation. A Big Mustache Trial Lawyer wil rely on his minions, who may or may not do the correct preparation. The Big Mustache Trial Lawyer often ends up believing his own BS. When I go into trial there isn't a piece of paper I haven't personally reviewed. I guess, I am old-fashioned, but I even do deposition summaries myself, something paralegals typically do, in order to know exactly what the witness said because paralegals often get it wrong. If I can, I will not bring a paralegal to trial, will carry my own boxes of material into the courtroom - in front of the jury, of course, vbg - and otherwise create the impression that I am not aligned with the bunch of other lawyers who bring in platoons of associates and paralegals. It can be done and I do it. Preparation is the key to winning. Unfortunately, the art of trying a case is a dying one because it is not economic to try smaller cases in which young trial lawyers can make their bones, learn how it is done the hard way. The bigger cases end up being tried by committee, a disaster, IMO.

To: John Carragher who wrote (147608)	1/12/2007 10:02:47 AM
From: GO*QCOM	Respond to of 152472

UNION TRIBUNE:Patent violated, expert testifies Qualcomm, Broadcom processes compared By Kathryn Balint STAFF WRITER January 12, 2007 An expert on video compression testified yesterday in Qualcomm's federal court trial that rival Broadcom's chips and software infringe on two of the San Diego wireless company's patents. Iain Richardson, an associate professor at Robert Gordon University in Scotland, said he compared Qualcomm's patented video-compression technology to the technology used in Broadcom chips and software for such devices as Apple video iPods, satellite set-top boxes and a DVD authoring system made by Toshiba. Under direct questioning by a Qualcomm attorney, Richardson said he determined through his research over the past year that the video-compression processes used in Broadcom's products and those that are described in the two patents are identical. Richardson, author of the book “H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression,” is being paid about $400 an hour by Qualcomm to serve as an expert witness in the patent-infringement case against Irvine-based Broadcom – part of a larger feud that began when Broadcom announced it was going to compete against Qualcomm by making chips for cell phones. Richardson also testified that one of the patents in question describes technology that is identical to that used in the H.264 industry standard for video compression, a widely used method of compressing digital video so that it can be easily sent over the Internet, over cellular networks and over cable or by satellite. The patent was issued in 1995, and the standard was developed in 2003. The H.264 video compression standard is used in millions of consumer electronic products. A victory for Qualcomm in the case could mean that dozens of manufacturers of electronic devices would have to pay royalties to Qualcomm for use of its patented technology or face similar patent-infringement suits by the company. Broadcom, a manufacturer of chips for electronic devices, uses the H.264 standard in a handful of products. But attorney William Lee, representing Broadcom in the case before U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster, argues that the video-compression methods outlined in Qualcomm's patents are not the same as those used by Broadcom and other manufacturers whose products comply with the H.264 standard. 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. Qualcomm is seeking $8.3 million in damages from Broadcom as well as unspecified payments for future use of its patented technology. Qualcomm is the world's second largest cell-phone chip maker. The company also owns key patented technology that is necessary in the manufacture of cell phones that can surf the Internet at high speeds, download videos and play 3D video games. Broadcom has sought to license that technology from Qualcomm, but negotiations fell apart, with Broadcom accusing Qualcomm of trying to stifle competition by overcharging for the use of its technology. Since then, the companies have filed a spate of lawsuits and other legal complaints against each other. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Balint: (619) 293-2848; kathryn.balint@uniontrib.com