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: pyslent who wrote (67937)	8/19/2007 1:43:41 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197452

BRCM has no obligation to be FRAND-ly. Qualcomm does with their WCDMA patents that are essential. For me, this is a critically important assumption because it determines how everything else plays out. Can Broadcom buy patents that are entirely free from FRANDly obligations? Can a SpinCo entity relieve itself of obligations to SSOs that its parent had? If so, why can’t Qualcomm’s video compression patent be sold to a third party that has no record of attendance or participation in the H.264 committee? This patent might require some laundering between multiple companies, but in the end it becomes squeaky clean. This final party may be free to sue Broadcom for the use of the patent once (good) attorneys show the derivative nature of their integer DCT algorithm to the compression patent. If this method works, Qualcomm can pass down another patent to further disrupt Broadcom’s business model. This should keep the bastards twisting in the wind. However, I think they may have another bullet to fire with regards to an A-GPS patent. Message 23618038 In estatemkr’s post, Broadcom purchased Global Locate with 175 patents in the GPS domain. Given that they had access to detailed Qualcomm documents, they may have discovered an area of A-GPS that is not covered by a Qualcomm patent. If they exercised due diligence with respect to these 175 patents and found something that they could take to court against Qualcomm, the $146 million spent may buy them significantly more after another (random) court judgment. Qualcomm had better get the best litigators available, in-house or not. If the “out-house” litigators failed because of incompetence, replace them ASAP. All that I can ask of a company is not to make the same mistake twice. Others will ask for no mistakes and no incompetence, however I sadly know better. Regarding engineers vs. lawyers: I have read many technical papers and reviewed many patents, and I have rarely ever seen a patent that faithfully described the actual mathematics or physics of the paper. Somehow, the patent attorneys have their own special nomenclature that escapes most engineers. (engineer, feel free to disagree.) Qualcomm should become as aggressive as possible to fight Broadcom, or it will face many more attempts for monetary judgments. This could become a death by a thousand cuts. Best wishes