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: limtex who wrote (1119)	8/25/2007 7:37:56 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9132

Patent Validity and Enforceability L, << EL - The question I asked you then was more to do with the fundamental validity of the patents. >> Really? I didn't interpret it that way. Let's go back and read your 13+ month old July 2006 post to me ... EL - what chance is there that the Q wins all of these cases around the globe? Lose one and it seems there is a major problem. Now we are seeing several posts questioning the standing of Qs patents. We used to think that Q had the key enforceable patents that seems to be unraveling fast. In addition to 'validity' you specifically referenced enforceability (1.e key ENFORCEABLE patents') and you referred to "all of the cases around the globe" the majority of which were based on QUALCOMM submarine patents they had recently floated, and now even more than then, are "QUALCOMM patents that seem to be unravelling fast." << 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 advantage and that this in established law and precedent will automatically make unenforceable any such patent. ... <snip> ... IJ would never have allowed that. >> When QUALCOMM laid the groundwork for its patent ambushes IMJ was at the helm and there was even less case law than there is today on attempts to violate or circumvent the IPR Policy of SSO/SDOs. Add Rambus (FTC decision) and QUALCOMM (US District Court, San Diego) to the sparse list of cases now dealing with the subject. << Whatever they were doing I feel confident that they were not deliberately trying to deceive and that they did what was standard and common practice. >> What QUALCOMM was doing or attempting to do was decidedly not standard and common industry practice. They are, however, an innovative company. Perhaps they attempted to be overly-innovative in their IPR and licensing practices and litigation attached to those practices. << 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 advantage and that this in established law and precedent will automatically make unenforceable any such patent. >> Precedent (and there is still little) does not AUTOMATICALLY make unenforceable any such patent. More difficult to enforce, perhaps. The circumstances will be evaluated on a case by case basis. A temporary insanity defense in regard to challenges of untimely declaration of essential patents by the plaintiff probably won't hack it. <g> I'm about to hang up the "Gone Fishing" sign and I'll catch you again sometime next week. Enjoy my absence. <ggg> Cheers, - Eric -

To: limtex who wrote (1119)	8/26/2007 1:09:53 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9132

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 I'm pretty certain the law does not work this way. Judge Brewster's and the jury's finding that the video compression patents are unenforceable, even though valid, can (and will) be appealed on several points of law and the facts. Among the issues is whether the evidence of QUALCOMM's alleged duplicity meets the "clear and convincing" standard. I think Brewster now sees he overstepped on the law and on the tone of his decision, which would explain why he no longer wants any part of future related cases. Even though QCOM is not blameless in this whole affair, and in fact is a more ethical company than its adversaries (no matter how hard they try to argue to the contrary), nice guys don't always finish first. They rarely finish last, either. Art