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: ohohyodafarted who wrote (61345)	3/22/2007 6:44:49 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197294

Regarding the need to inform regulators, in this case the SSO, I mentioned an earlier case which has many similarities, involving ExxonMobil and Unocal (now part of Chevron). It is worth mentioning here: Unocal developed a process for making reformulated gasolines with low pollution characteristics. California regulators eventually adopted a standard for reformulated gasoline that incorporated the Unocal process. Unocal then announced it owned the patent for that process and would collect royalties from any firm using that particular proprietary process. Tosco reached a licensing and royalty agreement, but Exxon balked and filed suit, claiming that since Unocal did not inform California regulators, its patent was invalid and unenforceable. The case went through the federal court system, and Unocal won at trial and on appeal. The Supreme Court, in declining to review the appeal, in effect let stand the decision affirming Unocal's right to the patent and to collect royalties. I don't know how much clearer you can get. It just looks to me like the judge in this case overlooked not only the rules of evidence but relevant precedent. Art