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 (61338)	3/22/2007 6:10:47 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 197225

Patent Ambushes >> 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? >> Yes. The declaration dates ... Message 23323460 - Eric -

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (61338)	3/22/2007 7:44:36 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 197225

In the BRCM case, it appears that the JVT formally requested patent declarations on a "best efforts" basis. Judge Rudi unfortunately took this "best efforts" requirement and married it to Sulllivan's more stringent unwritten code of conduct, determining that the appropriate test was more like that of the SSO involved in the Rambus case. It's a tough thing when the written material is a bit lenient yet the unwritten code of conduct is controlling. After following the case, and I admit I do not have the kind of knowledge that I would have if I were handling the matter, I was struck by the fact that Judge Rudi characterized the emails concerning Q's participation, such as it was, in the JVT as those which were "ultimately" produced. There was a dispute about the emails, and the fact that they may have been produced on the 11th hour. It seems that BRCM may have been able to validly claim that they were hidden. In reading opinions and the minds of judges, when a judge refers to emails which were "ultimately" produced, he is saying that he was not pleased by this apparent lack of candor. That kind of stuff hurts, and it hurts a lot. I suspect that the emails which were "ultimately" produced had something to do with his decision. They surely did not help. Even rookie lawyers know not to hide stuff. And if that is the reason, or a reason, why Q lost, well, that is just tough. No sympathy from me for lawyers who shade things or hide evidence. The case is unfortunately creating backdraft for Q because now we have another damned decision from a respected judge holding that you've got to be as clean as Caesar's wife with the SSOs regardless of what the formal declaration policy might be. It is not the kind of precedent one wants to have on the books for larger cases such as those involving Nokia and the GSM patents. Stupid, stupid, stupid thinking on the Q's legal team's part. Forget the fees, the loss, the pathetic trial presentation, all of which hurt. What really matters is that we now have a judge in Q's back yard backing up to the Rambus case's standard when we have Nokia in our sights for the same thing. All for the immensely stupid purpose of harassing BRCM and trying to nail down a measly $8.5 million. This is the kind of result we lawyers get paid the big bucks to avoid. The best advice Q could have had was 'forget it, don't sue, the backdraft could kill you' but with lawyers at the trough, you'll never see that ever get said. It's the job of the general counsel to have the wisdom to see through all that noise. Lupin/Altman seriously f***ed up; they need to go before they do more extensive damage. Arrrrgh, the Q's legal team is starting to believe its own BS.