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: ohohyodafarted who wrote (61592)	3/28/2007 2:47:41 AM
From: Raglanroadie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197515

"If in fact QCOM does have a work around, what is the reason that Qcom has been silent on this issue. Why haven't they been boasting of not needing the crappy BRCM IP that is in dispute. Why not declare that we aren't going to use the BRCM Ip any more and be done with it." I'm no expert believe me but do you play poker? To win a good pot you have to let the other party think their hand is the best. Sometimes you call and at others you raise. Each one is designed to convince the other party what you have and that they have you beat.

To: ohohyodafarted who wrote (61592)	3/28/2007 10:12:49 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197515

oh, Re: BRCM v QCOM / Injunction, and "QCOM's silence on this matter is most distressing, and leads one to believe that we are between a rock and a hard place if an injunction is issued. Please tell me why Q has not said anything more about a work around." Again>>> 1. The Q supports the use of the injunction in true patent abuse cases. 2. The BRCM ITC case remedy appears to provide for the use of the injunction, apparently even in minor patent infractions. 3. If the injunction can be used in this situation, it would even appear more appropriate against NOK re: GSM/GPRS/EDGE theft and even more so in WCDMA products. 4. The mere fact that the injunction remedy is considered , and a QCOM “loss” in the BRCM skirmish, establishes the precedent to win the war against NOK via the injunction use. 5. And, as Jay points out- 5.a. “ The patent in question will probably not even stand up to legal patent scrutiny”, 5.b. “This is the perfect patent case to take before the full commission because if QCOM loses the case, there is probably nothing really at stake (because they could simply de activate the power saving option)” Or, 6. The Q already has a design around solution that avoids their use of the BRCM patent in any event if the injunction is granted. If the above is correct, it’s a win / win for the Q in the long run, with perhaps negative PR in the short term, for it establishes the basis for using the injunction against NOK.