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: JeffreyHF who wrote (61332)	3/22/2007 5:40:08 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197286

It was a stupid case to bring, where those patents had never been licensed to anyone before, and Qualcomm was only asking for $8.5 million dollars. Then it was mishandled. Now Broadcom is crowing about a pattern of standards abuse, as if Qualcomm failed to disclose its air interface technologies. The market and public won`t understand, so perhaps billions will be taken from the market cap, and other courts and the ITC will read of Qualcomm`s abusive misconduct. Credibility is crucial, and it was sacrificed for no good reason, and without reasonable upside. The big question is how is Q's non disclosure of these patents any different than their non-disclosure of the GPRS/EDGE patents? On the bright side, it does seem that these patents are essential to the H.264 standard and that the judge is considering just having an automatic inclusion in the patent pool. Still wouldnt be worth the damage to Q's reputation though. Slacker

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (61332)	3/22/2007 5:53:30 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197286

Though the court ruled against QCOM, the material submitted by QCOM for consideration by the judge appears to contain points of law that could be appealed. I think QCOM ought to pursue an appeal on the law; namely that BRCM failed to meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence required for such a ruling. The judge merely seconded the jury recommendation. But if an appellate panel determines that the evidence didn't meet the standard required by law, then the result would be far more satisfactory. I don't believe an appeal would cost all that much. Art

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (61332)	3/22/2007 8:53:03 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 197286

What is sickening is that the standard setting process has won out over the rule of patent law. enuff said.

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (61332)	3/23/2007 4:11:44 AM
From: Raglanroadie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197286

Although I can understand Q's desire to respond early to BRCM on their home turf (product line) I cannot help but agree with what you say. There was to much downside risk compared to the pittance of upside. Then again it may not be fair to construe upside risk only as royalty's gained while ignoring what a signed deal would accrue. You are correct that perception is important but I suggest that we hold off until Q goes after BRCM for CDMA infringement. Although this recent stuff has been at the edges it will only serve to embolden NOK further. We may be only half way through this tunnel yet.