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: JeffreyHF who wrote (68776)	9/13/2007 4:26:03 PM
From: haroldS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197418

Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by the merits panel, we determine, based on the papers submitted, that Kyocera, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Sanyo, T-Mobile, and AT&T have shown a substantial case on the merits and that the harm factors weigh in their favor. Thus, a stay, pending appeal, of the LEO with respect to Kyocera, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Sanyo, T-Mobile, and AT&T is appropriate. Qualcomm's submission primarily concerns products imported by other entities and not Qualcomm's own imports. Qualcomm provides no reasoning why the cease and desist order should be stayed. We determine, based on the papers submitted, that Qualcomm has not made the requisite showing to obtain a stay, pending appeal, with respect to its own imports and the cease and desist order. Thus, a stay of the LEO with respect to Qualcomm's imports and the cease and desist order is not warranted. Qualcomm also requests that Ihe court issue a stay with respect to redesigned chips and products containing them. We determine that such relief is not proper because the LEO allows persons seeking to import chips and devices potentially subject to exclusion to certify that the imported products are not covered by the LEO. In addition, the redesigned chips were not involved in the proceedings before the ITC and thus they are outside the scope of this appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 2007-1 (1) The motions for a stay, pending appeal, filed by Kyocera, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Sanyo, T-Mobile, and AT&T are granted. The LEO is stayed with respect to those parties. (2) Qualcomm's Motion for a stay, pending appeal, is denied

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (68776)	9/13/2007 4:35:59 PM
From: talksfree	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197418

It is from another agreement. I don't know if Verizon is a customer, or if the chip maker would be the customer. However, you can expect that if the chip maker is the customer, that the chip maker then would indemnify Verizon in a similar manner when the chips are sold to Verizon. Verizon would then make the claim against the chip maker under the chip maker/Verizon contract, and the then the chip maker would make the claim against Verizon under the chipmaker/Q agreement.