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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (4940)	3/29/2009 3:52:35 PM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 9128

Whatever infringement ITT is claiming, it is unlikely that it is related to the patent where Q cites the ITT patent. Products (ie chipsets) infringe patents as they incorporate tons of innovative ideas which may or may not be patented by all sorts of folks. You're right about common sense, though.

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (4940)	3/29/2009 5:49:22 PM
From: CrackheadBob	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9128

I think it would be easier to claim treble damages in that case. Treble damages arise when you knowingly infringe a patent. If you are already aware that a patent exists and infringe it, treble damages can be awarded much easier. That's the whole reason that treble damages exists, to discourage someone for doing just that. Citing a patent as prior art has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the underlying patent. Inventions build upon other inventions all the time in every industry. If "Company A" invents and patents a groundbreaking new technology, that does not stop "Company B" from inventing and patenting something else that builds upon that groundbreaking technology. Just because Company B has something additional, though, they still need the rights to the first invention to bring their products to market.