SI
SI
discoversearch

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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: waitwatchwander who wrote (58952)1/24/2007 9:34:22 AM
From: rkral  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 197244
 
>>>he [Ramchandran] listed four differences that he said were fundamentally different than the transform used in the H.264 standard<<<

If the implementation by Broadcom wholly uses even one claim of a valid Qualcomm patent, Broadcom is infringing. It matters not if there simultaneously exists one difference, four differences or even ninety-nine differences.

And it shouldn't be very hard for a competent lawyer to get that point across to a jury, even a jury of non-technical people.



To: waitwatchwander who wrote (58952)1/24/2007 3:37:58 PM
From: JGoren  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 197244
 
I am as confused as ever. Frankly, from perusing the literature it seems there is enough difference in the two methods. Hate to say that, but .... On the other hand, it is a very good point that so long as there is one infringement, it doesn't matter about the differences. Let's hope the lawyers ram it home.

Hadn't thought about schmatas but was thinking high end retailing where the tendency would be to split; small differences in dress designs makes big difference. Of course, with schmatas, it's perfectly acceptable to do a knockoff. We'll just have to wait and see and hope for the best re the trial.

On BRCM stock price, it's pretty clear that a lot of the downward pressure was because of the delayed--and now filed--reports.