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: rkral who wrote (67911)	8/18/2007 3:34:51 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 197272

Did the KSR v. Teleflex decision even involve a continuation patent? Yes it did. KSR had a patent on a method to adjust the accelerator pedal distance to the foot, so that drivers with shorter legs could still reach the accelerator without pushing the seat too close to the dashboard. Teleflex had a patent that adapted this method from a mechanical linkage to an electronic linkage needed for newer vehicles with fuel injection and computerized engine controls. The Supreme Court said that an electronic linkage was obvious, since any knowledgeable person would see that it was the only way you could change the distance between the foot and the accelerator in a vehicle with electronic engine controls. Furthermore, I question the whole notion that QCOM was obligated to inform the Standards Setting Body of its video compression patents, on the basis of the decision on the case involving ExxonMobil and Unocal over reformulated gasoline. I've mentioned this several times on this thread but haven't seen any comments as to whether it even applies to the QCOM-BRCM situation. Briefly, Unocal influenced California regulators to adopt low pollution gasoline standards that could be met most easily by a process Unocal invented, WITHOUT TELLING THE REGULATORS ABOUT ITS PATENTED PROCESS. After the regulators approved the standard, Unocal claimed its patent rights, leading to a suit by ExxonMobil, claiming the patent was invalid because Unocal hadn't informed the regulators. The trial and appeallate courts ruled in favor of Unocal, on grounds that what Unocal did has NOTHING to do with the validity of its patent, and what's more, is not illegal or unethical. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so the appellate affirmation of the lower court stands. Why wouldn't this case be material in a QCOM appeal on the video compression case? I'm not a lawyer here. All I do is read the stuff and try to understand it as best as I can. Art