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

To: rkral who wrote (58953)	1/25/2007 1:56:37 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 197244

Phew, thanks. At last somebody states the obvious. <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. > The discussion has seemed to be that if the transforms are fundamentally the same, or fundamentally different, that's the matter decided. In fact, it's one claim of one patent which makes the difference, as has applied to QCOM in Broadcom's broadside against them in which QCOM was found to breach one claim of one patent. Actually, I think it was two claims, but they were co-dependent claims meaning if one was true, the other also was, so it was really one matter. Mqurice