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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (148877)	9/3/2018 7:16:57 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197250

Art, re: QCOM / Supreme Court Quanta Case Ruling ???? “...The Supreme Court decision exempted Qualcomm's licensing agreements from the exhaustion limitation because, as the court noted, it was a contractual arrangement agreed to by both sides. That exemption appears to justify the way Qualcomm licenses the use of its patents....” >>>>>> We’ve discussed the Quanta case on this board in the past, but I don’t recall that case specifically pertaining to QCOM’s licensing agreement...... specifically exempting QCOM from exhaustion. Is the QCOM exemption referred to in the SC Quanta ruling, or is this your /others interpretation of such?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (148877)	9/4/2018 8:58:39 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197250

. . . . should have been settled by the Supreme Court case involving Intel, Samsung, and Quanta (known as the Quanta decision). Intel had a chip licensing agreement with Samsung, and Samsung paid royalties to Intel on chips made by Samsung and sold to others, including Quanta. Intel insisted that Quanta also should pay royalties, but the Supreme Court ruled that Quanta didn't have to, owing to patent exhaustion. Art, Quanta decision involved patent rights sold by LG to Intel. Intel then sold its product with LG IP to Quanta. LG, not Intel, was the party to the dispute seeking royalty payments. BTW, the LG agreement had expressed language limiting Intel's ability to sell licensed LG IP where it would be combined with components from another source. SCT did not give any legal enforceability to such language.