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: Eric L who wrote (1118)	8/25/2007 2:46:37 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9132

EL - The question I asked you then was more to do with the fundamental validity of the patents. Seems to me that nothing in the BRCM debacle has affected the core IPR. What seems to have changed after Brewster is that some of Qs patents may have been filed correctly and are valid but that they did not comply with yet another hurdle namely that of when they were communicated to a standards body. There are also hints in posts that Q as a matter of habit declares its patents late and or that this is done premeditatedly so as to gain unfair avantage and that this in established law and precedent will automatically make unenforceable any such patent. If that is so then the enire basis of Q is undermined and its commercial viability is in jeopardy. If this were the way Q has behaved then you would have to imagine its management knew or should have known that they were misleading the financial community as to the whole basis of the Q. I find such a position very hard to believe. IJ would never have allowed that. The consequences for him were this to be the case would be appaling. Whatever they were doing I feel confident that they were not deliberatly trying to deceive and that they did what was standard and common practice. I can't explain the mess over BRCM but I view it as an aberation and that it has caused a new start in the legal and engineering departments. That must surely have happened. So if there is any danger of a material loss in any one of the GSM/EDGE cases I am sure that Q will review the risk of continuing with it and concentrate on the W-cdma issues with NOK. No-one has yet suggested any similar impediment with any of the w-cdma patents. Obviously there must have been a giant change of course and re-organisation inside the Q as a result of the BRCM debacle and I don't think we have seen much of the results of that yet and I expect them to be positive. Best, L