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: carranza2 who wrote (852)	8/15/2007 7:59:13 AM
From: JeffreyHF	Respond to of 9132

Re: the bitterness of the fight between QCOM and BRCM I would submit that it was caused by Broadcom, when they rejected the most generous deal that TI negotiated, elected to join the Project Stockholm Group, and decided to go nuclear. Attempts at mediation by Rudi Brewster last Fall, involving Irwin and Samueli personally, failed to alter the dynamic, and resolve the matter.

To: carranza2 who wrote (852)	8/15/2007 10:29:06 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 9132

Case law and public policy have also had an impact on the amount of IPR disclosed in the standard–setting process. The two most important cases were the FTC’s antitrust actions against Dell and Rambus, and a great deal has been written about each of them. The central message of both cases is that firms that fail to disclose their intellectual property, or worse attempt to manipulate the disclosure process, may forfeit their property rights. firstmonday.org I'm not sure that the Dell and Rambus cases are directly applicable to the Qualcomm case. With respect to Dell, they made a direct vote for the final version of the standard and their representative certified that "to the best of his knowledge" that the standard did not violate any of their IP. Page 11. law.northwestern.edu Rambus's case is a lot more complicated....but again they had an active role in the development of the standard and then went out and amended their patent applications to cover the standard. In both cases, the companies "participation" in the standard went far beyond Q's monitoring of the standard. Brewster actually references the fact that Qualcomm didnt need to be active to have participated. online.wsj.com The Court FINDS well beyond clear and convincing evidence that Qualcomm participated in the JVT from as early as January 2002, even earlier than the Court originally found in its March 21 Order and, more importantly, well before the JVT released the H.264 standard in May 2003. Participation does not require submission of proposals, speeches, objections or leadership roles. I'm not saying that he is wrong, but I do think that this is an original thesis that isnt found in the Dell and Rambus cases. An IPR powerhouse like Q knows these elementary principles. The only reasonable conclusion is that it decided in this case to ignore them. I think we are going to have disagree on this one. We are left with two options....either Q interpreted the standards obligations differently than Brewster or that they knew the obligations and yet decided to forgo their rights. Maybe that is true in the video patent case, but in GPRS/EDGE? Why would they do that? They could have declared their IP and then taken a few years to bring suits (it took years for Nokia/Ericsson to enforce their GSM/WCDMA rights against the Korean manufacturers). Slacker