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: carranza2 who wrote (59596)2/1/2007 9:03:24 AM
From: blimfark  Respond to of 197740
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong C2, but the Fat Lady hasn't sung on this case yet, if I understood the discussion about the Judge interpreting the advisory decision by the Jury. Could not QCOM come out with a victory on this case.



To: carranza2 who wrote (59596)2/1/2007 9:09:44 AM
From: Peter Ecclesine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 197740
 
Hi carranza2,

>>
The point about SSOs setting the patent and royalty structure before approving future standards has huge implications not just for Q but for the entire tech industry.<<

This is a plea, not a fact.

Author cannot name the SSO where this is true today.

Every SSO is cautious about incorporating IPR, but lawyers keep engineers from looking at patent filings, so their company can claim ignorance about infringement claims.

petere



To: carranza2 who wrote (59596)2/1/2007 10:10:59 AM
From: GO*QCOM  Respond to of 197740
 
QUALCOMM knowing it had nothing to use may have filed the suit just to keep Broadcom distracted wearing them down a little at a time (grinder technique).QUALCOMM committing 200 million for legal cost in 2007 tells me they are in preparation for a broad scale war (no pun intended)this was a small side war while they prepare themselves for the essential battles that will matter.