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: mindykoeppel who wrote (1107)	8/24/2007 4:57:39 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9132

I would read the conclusion to Brewster's ruling. He certainly didnt throw out the standards abuse portion of the decision. online.wsj.com Slacker

To: mindykoeppel who wrote (1107)	8/24/2007 6:12:13 PM
From: kyungha	Respond to of 9132

CAFC- Court of Appeals Federal Circuit has plenty of precedence to rule in regard to alleged misconduct before standart setting organization. Q said it would appeal and believed to have confidence to have it over turned. The standar setting organization is an open forum and anybody can attend as understood. Q engineers attended there too but it has no bearing on misconduct. Question is if Q was obliged to report to them of its IPR being to be a part of standard regardless if Q knew it or not. Chances are that Q or any other others who were not official member of the committee/organization did not have duty to disclose. I am not a law student, so..... TIA