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: slacker711 who wrote (840)	8/15/2007 2:00:15 AM
From: Glider05	Respond to of 9132

I think this question has been brought up before, but, if Rudi's judgment is a precedent, then in the future, why would any company with any patents ever participate, attend, or be anywhere near any standards setting committee? Or if they did, why would they not claim that every one of their patents applies to the standard? Some employee ends up on a mailing list of the committee, which makes the employer a submarining patent troll? (not saying that this is exactly what happened in the Q v. B case). It does not make any sense whatsoever. It would then behoove the committee to find patents owned by folks on the mailing lists, not paying much attention, and use those, knowing that by the "Rudi Rule', they won't have to pay any license fees. It seems like there is not much logic to whole patent system.