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 (61436)	3/25/2007 9:39:11 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 197240

Qgent, as far as I can recall, Unocal (as described in the Exxon complaint by Exxon) deliberately avoided telling the California regulators that a proposed standard for reformulated gasoline would likely involve using the Unocal patent. It's also true that there was another way of meeting the standard, but it was far more expensive than the Unocal patented process. It's also true that QCOM used lobbying tactics in an effort to influence the California regulators, and apparently succeeded. The courts said that such lobbying tactics regardless of the ethical questions, did not have anything to do with patent validity, and that the patent was enforceable. The split decision of the judge brings up yet another question: He accepts the jury finding that the patents are valid. He then also says that the patents are enforceable (which may mean that he ruled similarly to the Unocal case). But then he says that the SSO was deceived, so the patents as used by BRCM are NOT enforceable! At least that's how I interpret it. I don't get it, and I don't know if the judge does either. I'm inclined to agree with c2 that the judge became angered by the QCOM lawyers who at first didn't advise about the emails in question and then only much later admitted that there were a batch of emails that hadn't been submitted previously. But I still don't see how such a late submission (that was still used in testimony, not after the case had gone to the jury) can be called deceptive. Art