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: JGoren who wrote (59609)	2/1/2007 7:59:01 PM
From: voop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197246

In an interview with Reuters, Qualcomm chief executive Paul Jacobs said the idea of bringing in an arbitrator had been discussed as "We aren't making much progress on the substantive issues." Paul also refuted that he called for an arbiter in the recent conference call Paul Jacobs As for the arbitration comment, this is Paul, since I was quoted on that. What actually happened in that interview was, I told the reporter that I thought the negotiations were not going anywhere, and therefore it seemed likely that some external event, whether it was deadlines or some judicial thing or some other external event might be the impetus that would cause things to move along. The reporter herself took that to be arbitration, although I specifically told her that, that wasn't the case necessarily and so that's where that came from. seekingalpha.com

To: JGoren who wrote (59609)	2/2/2007 12:00:14 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197246

THEY THINK QCOM MANIPULATES THE STANDARDS TO INCLUDE ITS IPR I may have mentioned some time ago a case relating directly to this issue of manipulation. It involves a patent for reformulated gasoline, allowing the refining of low pollution gasoline without ingredients that might contaminate water supplies, etc. The patent was issued to UNOCAL, which then did a good job of influencing California officials to adopt a standard for low pollution gasoline that would incorporate the Unocal patent. California regulators adopted the standard, without being told of Unocal's interest in it. Among those who challenged the patent (on the basis that the regulators weren't informed) was Exxon Mobil. The patent court upheld the validity of the Unocal patent, and the validity was also affirmed by the appellate panel and by the entire appellate court en banc. Then Exxon went to the Supreme Court, which denied a hearing. So the patent stands as valid. With no other recourse, Exxon began working on federal regulators to reduce the standards for reformulated gasoline so that Exxon wouldn't have to use a refining process involving payment of royalties to Unocal (which since has been acquired by Chevron). The EPA is trying its best to accommodate Exxon, but the ultimate resolution of that issue is unclear. But my main point is that it appears that the law does not require QUALCOMM to tell a standards setting organization that it has a patent crucial to the adoption of that standard. Art