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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (816)	8/14/2007 5:48:51 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

I have spake, Thus you have. I agree that Q did not wish to ambush the industry. It did, however, very much wish to ambush BRCM. Patents are indeed public records, for the whole world to see and read. However, their applicability to a standard is not necessarily known unless the patent holder claims so. Failure to claim their applicability while attending meetings, hiring Central European cloak-and-dagger artists to do your bidding, and otherwise deciding to hide in the bushes while looking away from a distance is, well, smelly, especially when there is a positive duty to disclose what you know or might know or think you know or intuit or grok or simply guess or believe. The 'out of the blue' business is a matador's cape to a judge who is honorable and believes in fair play. One does not simply sue out of the blue without first trying to work things out. The Right Honorable Judge Rudi probably knew little of the bad blood between the two companies so he naturally assumed that the failure to try to reach a compromise was evidence of evil intent on Q's part. You and I and everyone else who has followed this Dickensian tale knows that it would have been a waste of time to try to deal with BRCM amicably before suing. However, this points to the lack of lawyerly cunning on the part of Q's lawyers. These expensive dolts should have engaged BRCM in negotiations, even if it would have been a waste of time. Having gone through the formality of negotiating, Q would not have been tarred with the 'out of the blue' finding - "See, Judge, we tried, and they still won't pay their due, get licensed like they should. We had to sue, though we hate to do so, etc." A little lawyer's cunning, sorely missing here, would have gone a long way. As far as the lying and the cheating and the prevaricating...all established. The Q lawyers are in deep, deep trouble. Big whack coming. For the sake of you and our colleagues here, I hope it doesn't affect the price per share too much. Thus I have spaken.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (816)	8/14/2007 6:13:11 PM
From: mindykoeppel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

Maurice well said! Thanks for taking the time before your breakfast to do so.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (816)	8/14/2007 6:24:16 PM
From: pyslent	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9132

There was no plot to "ambush" the industry I agree with those here that Qualcomm's behavior is not consistent with a plot to eventually approach all H.264 vendors with licensing demands. One wonders, then, why else did they watch as their IPR was included in the standard without speaking up? They had every opportunity to declare and therefore monetize their relevant patents. If that was their intent. When the Nokia re-nogiations first started brewing, PJ made a statement that they had new "strategies" at their disposal other than Spinco. Eventually, it became clear that those strategies included bringing infringement actions against Nokia for GSM and EDGE patents. My guess is that the video compression patents were part of the same general stategy. Qualcomm may have decided that they would not pursue patent infringement cases in areas that were not core to CDMA, but intended to keep ancillary IPR as weapons to be used only if infringing companies ever became "trouble-makers." As such, Broadcom was the first (and only) H.264-compliant vendor to receive this particular shot-across-the-bow. This strategy is effective only as long as there is no obligation to be non-discriminitory. Once FRAND rules are found to apply, the IPR becomes useless as a means to selectively exert power over a troublesome company. This was the motive behind Qualcomm's decision to not declare to the JVC, IMO.