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 (61393)	3/23/2007 10:35:50 AM
From: mindy1968	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197244

It seems the Judge did NOT cut the baby in half but in a Solomonesque decision made both parties unhappy. I am glad that the part that Q won was that they were NOT guilty of inequitable conduct in the patent process. The rest although stupid and aggravating, would have turned the whole video industry upside down with Q claiming royalties on that compression patent. So Judge Brewster wisely - and only because he had something to hang his hat on with the hidden emails - even though it was after the standard was written and unsolicited, etc. - that he was able to deny Q enforcement of its patent. Is the headline that Q ABUSED the SOS a BRCM headline or did the JUDGE actually say that? At any rate, the juice may not be worth the squeeze to appeal this case. I think Q should just move on. Let's keep our fingers crossed that the ITC does NOT ban the phones with those infringing chips in them. Was BRCM guilty of NOT advising the standards body which wrote the EV-DO standard of their power patent that is used when NOT near a cell tower? Maybe Brcm did the same thing Q is accused of doing but willfully. Q's is a huge gaff but unintentional I believe.

To: Qgent who wrote (61393)	3/23/2007 11:26:30 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197244

What you must remember is that typically a defendant, BRCM in this case, asks for everything in discovery from witnesses who might testify, including emails. Moreover, effective trial preparation for Q also means obtaining everything that might conceivably relate to the case, i.e., all emails from witnesses that relate in any way to the matter at issue. One of two or three things happened here. First, the Q lawyer hid the emails because they were not supportive of the position that Q had nothing to do with the JVT except to monitor proceedings. Second, Q got set up because it, ineptly or intentionally, did not produce the emails and BRCM had them from the JVT site. Broadcon then manipulated things to make Q look bad. Third, Q had no idea they existed and it got ambushed. Every single explanation is damning to Q. I can't think of one that does not reflect badly on Q's honesty or trial preparation. Since I don't think Q's attorneys were so abysmally inept as to not be aware of the emails - they pulled them at some point to prepare for trial, after all - my guess is that they purposefully hid them, not knowing that BRCM, who did prepare, probably had them from another source. Stupid and shifty. I am absolutely sure that this incident irritated the hell out of the judge, who made a very serious point of it in his opinion, even quoting the Q lawyer who denied the existence of the emails. And don't forget that Q made submissions to the JVT, that it filed suit against BRCM before declaring in 2006, that at least one of the Q witnesses knowledgeable of the standard said she had reviewed the patent, etc. It's all there, at pp-22-34 of the opinion, and it is all pretty damning. It is clear that this case should have never been filed. Where's the oversight? Where are the gray haired lawyers telling Q to think long and hard about filing a case like this one? Where is the preparation you and I as shareholders paid for so dearly? Why did Q ruin its good will before Judge Rudi, before whom it will appear many times in the future, by appearing shifty and dishonest? We didn't get what we paid for, wisdom in counselling and obsessive preparation at trial. The legal team performed like rank amateurs. and in no way am I trying to be argumentative and or disrespectful. I know that and I appreciate it. I am looking at the facts as related by a judge who seems eminently fair and square. I have followed this fiasco from the time the trial started. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a giant screw up, with incompetence of the scale we experienced thanks to FEMA here in New Orleans after Katrina. This was a monster screw up which has left me with a lot of doubts about the fabled Q legal team and its ability to protect the IPR. And since protection of the IPR is absolutely essential to Q's business model, it is making me think twice about its future. After all, the big battles, the ones that matter, are coming up. The one good thing about this fiasco is that the cracks in the armor are now there for all to see. Perhaps they can be repaired, but it is going to take a major shake up. I personally think Lupin has to go, he's over his head.