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: Eric L who wrote (61335)	3/22/2007 5:59:39 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197217

If QCOM's handling of these patents is considered an ambush, then the latest ruling goes against a long precedent of cases that suggest otherwise. In addition to cases mentioned by QCOM in its brief, there is the famous case of the holder of the variable speed windshield wiper patent going after General Motors for not realizing it was infringing. He won against GM. Evidently this was not patent ambush, even though it was several years before the patent holder informed GM (and later Chrysler and Ford) of the infringement. There must be some grey area here that I don't know about. Art

To: Eric L who wrote (61335)	3/22/2007 6:01:53 PM
From: JeffreyHF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197217

Re: Patent Ambush Every case is fact specific.Are you aware of any evidence to support your contention that Qualcomm had, and breached, duties of disclosure applicable to the standardization of GPRS/EDGE?

To: Eric L who wrote (61335)	3/22/2007 9:11:27 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 197217

This ruling only means that one can win by being innovative or by creating a process in which you rule that others didn't play be your rules and it only highlights the UNFRANDLY nature of the standards setting process. Not sweat to Qualcomm though, their crown jewels don't need to rely on such foolishness.