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: kyungha who wrote (61487)	3/25/2007 1:57:31 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197214

Timely Declaration of IPR to an SDO (a 3GPP OP) kyungha, << I do not see a line from any of above post that QCOM did not disclose its IPR implicated in the issue. ... <snip> ... The fact is that QCOM participated and gave them the license to be used WCDMA only, not GPRS or EDGE. Have I missed something? >> You evidently have. The ETSI declaration dates by QUALCOMM of the specific declared GSM/GPRS/EDGE IPR that QUALCOMM alleges (or once alleged) that (Broadcom and) Nokia is infringing. For that you need to go to the ETSI IPR database. My (latest) summary of that search to which rkral and others provided assistance on the other QUALCOMM board is here ... Message 23323460 The issue of timely disclosure (what is known in the industry as a 'patent ambush') is very likely to be an issue in QUALCOMM v. Nokia cases still pending in each of these venues ... 1. Federal District Court for the Southern District of California, USA [November 2005] 2. The United Kingdom [May 2006] 3. International Trade Commission (ITC), USA [June 2006] 4. Germany [August 2006] 5. France [October 2006] 6. Italy [October 2006] 7. CHINA [2007] As Carranza noted here recently ... The whole thrust of the Rambus case and the one involving QCOM appears to be a real antipathy on the part of the courts towards patent ambush. I can't say I disagree; it's a bad thing no matter who practices it. As he stated there is great antipathy on the part of the courts towards patent ambush. This is particularly true when the perpetrator is exceptionally IPR savvy and relies on an IPR business model for a substantial part of its revenue flow and profit. In the QUALCOMM v. Nokia cases the obligation to disclose in timely fashion (before a standard is set) as a result of QUALCOMM's privilege to participate in 3GPP by virtue of their ETSI membership and to be governed by its IPR Policy is more formal than it was in the MPEG standards consortium whose standards were the subject of litigation in the Broadcom case in Judge Rudi Brewsters domain, and QUALCOMM's home court, in San Diego. That was the subject of the discussion between Jeff and I that led to the post you quoted. Cheers, - Eric -