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 (61000)	3/15/2007 2:01:17 PM
From: Stan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197155

The problem may be that the word "settled" was used loosely. What I think may have happened is that Q dropped a suit that was weak because it did not want a reoccurrence of the adverse verdict it got several weeks back.

To: JGoren who wrote (61000)	3/15/2007 2:04:20 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197155

I dont think there has been a settlement, but I havent been able to keep very good track of this trial. Here is the docket entry from yesterday. Minute Entry for proceedings before Judge Rudi M. Brewster: The Two Qualcomm patents that make up Group 3 have been Withdrawn. As to U.S. Patent No. 5,638,412 see 513, filed 12/20/06 and as to U.S. Patent No. 5,778,338 see 820, filed 3/1/07. Therefore the Group 3 Pretrial Conference set for 4/20/07 and the Group 3 Jury Trial set for 5/29/07 are VACATED. (Court Reporter N/A). (mjm) (Entered: 03/13/2007) The '338 patent was already withdrawn at the end of February so why is it showing up again? The ITC thing seems weird. As I recall, the only infringement was on one patent that only had to do with when the handset is idle. Just on that basis alone, I can't see an injunction. Correct me if I am wrong. Very hard to imagine some political appointees overturning the recommondation of the judge against an injunction. OTOH, Dick Lynch (CTO Verizon) is scheduled to appear so it is obviously being taken seriously at the operator level. Slacker

To: JGoren who wrote (61000)	3/16/2007 6:00:13 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197155

Re: Settlement issues. A careful reading of the article published by the AP indicates that a settlement is being discussed but has not actually occurred. I agree that it would be more logical if a settlement included withdrawal of the BRCM complaint before the ITC. Even if BRCM refuses to withdraw its claim, I doubt that the ITC would be favorable to banning imports of handsets or chips using the infringing patents because other remedies are available which would give BRCM the same benefits and would not harm service providers such as Verizon. It is my understanding that in patent cases, whether heard in a federal court or before the ITC, a total ban is rare if there are other less drastic remedies. I would also suggest that a major settlement between QCOM and BRCM would result in QCOM not taking action against BRCM for its infringing the video compression patents, in return for which BRCM would take no action against QCOM for using the BRCM power management design in its chips. It seems to me that QCOM has set forth several leverage points, which if pursued might adversely affect potential competitors such as BRCM. Yet since QCOM is narrowly focused on wireless equipment using CDMA and/or MediaFLO, it would not object to a company like BRCM using certain patents in areas that do not compete with QCOM's business interests. This would amount to a cross licensing of certain patents between the two companies, but would still allow the collection of royalties on these patents from other users. JMHO. Art