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: Qgent who wrote (61374)	3/23/2007 3:05:49 AM
From: BDAZZ	Respond to of 197237

Maybe be strictly legal but I hope QCOM does not do business this way.

To: Qgent who wrote (61374)	3/23/2007 8:15:13 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197237

The intent is that the JVT experts should know in advance of any patent issues with particular proposals or techniques, so that these may be addressed well before final approval. This is not a binding legal document; it is provided to JVT for information only, on a best effort, good faith basis. Please submit corrected or updated forms if your knowledge or situation changes. This form is not a substitute for the ITU ISO IEC Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration, which should be submitted by Patent Holders to the ITU TSB Director and ISO Secretary General before final approval." This is what was written in the JVT form. It provides plenty of notice. The PR is malarkey. And why should there be a distinction made between parties with relevant IPR who monitor standards creation and those who participate? If the judge was convinced that Q in good faith didn't know it had relevant IPR, the result might have been different. Hiding emails from the person who monitored didn't help in this regard. The bottom line is that this case reeks of patent ambush, a pretty sleazy way to do business.

To: Qgent who wrote (61374)	3/23/2007 1:54:55 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197237

Patent ambush is suggesting an idea for the standard knowing they will need to implement your IPR That is precisely the issue addressed in the Exxon-Unocal case I discussed earlier. In fact, Unocal lobbied the California regulators to adopt a pollution standard that could be met by a patented process invented by Unocal, WITHOUT TELLING THEM that Unocal had a patent on the process. It is significant that Exxon lost at trial and before the appellate panel, and before the appellate court en banc, and finally before the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case and let stand the appellate affirmation of the lower court. Exxon v. Unocal is now the accepted law of the land on this issue. There's a good chance that Judge Brewster would be overturned on appeal. Art