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: Eric L who wrote (61488)	3/25/2007 3:16:26 PM
From: kyungha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197214

OK, I missed the points you were discussing. But, I am looking for any evidence of record contradicting my belief that QCOM disclosed and licensed its IPR specifying to be used for WCDMA only, not GPRS/EDGE. In the case of MPEG, I think the judge was biased ignoring the fact QCOM was not the member till later time when it became a member and disclosed related patents. There is no evidence that QCOM knew JVT was using its IPR for standard during the period of non membership. It is the simple assumption that QCOM is supposed to know it and and hide it. Suppose that this assumption is not false and supported by some direct or indirect evidence, what base in the law would give the court constitute waver? Why is there no law or standard that requires SSO to identify and notify the owner of patent being considered for adoption, for all fairness. QCOM should appeal and put the record straight.