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 (147611)	1/12/2007 10:10:41 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 152472

OK, you are right, the case is not over, we haven't seen the real deal, etc., but nonetheless let me leave you with this: Richardson's statement is that there are "fundamental" differences between Q's process and the one BRCM advocates. This is very strong language to use, language which I think is very hard to avoid. Like I said, I am often wrong. My wife would add, "but never in doubt."

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (147611)	1/12/2007 10:58:24 AM
From: matherandlowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"only incompetence could explain Qualcomm being unaware of their expert`s writings on point" Surely Dr. Lee will have an opportunity to reconcile his thoughts in front of the jury: he seems to be saying that the BRCM uses the method described in the QCOM patent but there is some "fundamental" difference between some aspect of the QCOM method and some aspect of the standard. It might be that the standard uses QCOM's patents for part of the task but adds and combines other methods for other parts. Q's property has still been crossed; the company still has to be compensated. I should say that that I once served jury duty and that I have made several appearances in traffic court, all to no avail. I'm sure you guys were wondering. j.