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 (1112)	8/24/2007 9:06:46 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 9132

abuse of their participation on the Standards Board is the issue now Brewster's decision on this point appears to be appealable both on the law and the facts. It isn't clear that certain actions before a standards setting organization can invalidate or render unenforceable a patent that has been found to be valid. Also this case is very fact specific and seems to hinge on whether the informal/observer posture taken by QCOM staff constitutes participation in a contractual sense. Does merely attending meetings bind a firm to a contractual obligation to inform the SSO of its IPR? Maybe so, maybe not. I have detailed a case in earlier discussions on this board where even lobbying an SSO to adopt a process you have previously patented, without informing the body of that fact neither invalidated the patent nor rendered it unenforceable. (ExxonMobil v. Unocal). QUALCOMM didn't lobby the SSO to adopt a standard that used its patent, and from what I have read in the case summary and decision, didn't play an active role in the standard setting process that resulted in a standard that happened to use QCOM IPR. The Brewster decision is certainly ripe for appeal. Art