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: slacker711 who wrote (148916)	9/5/2018 1:58:39 PM
From: Qurious	2 Recommendations Recommended By lml pheilman_ Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197106

"Broadcom only received a very limited exclusion order because of the public interest." Wrong, and wrong: (a) The ITC's exclusion order (LEO) was: (i) limited only in the technical sense that it was not a general exclusion order (GEO); (ii) whittled down when the court later reversed the ITC's inclusion in that order of "downstream products of non-respondents" because the ITC exceeded its authority. In other words, the exclusion ordered by the ITC (3:2 vote) was as broad/maximum as can be ordered within its authority. (b) There was no consideration of "public interest." NONE. That is pure fiction. The LEO was hammered down based purely on the ITC agreeing that Q infringed BRCM's patent (such innovative, novel claim: shut down part of the circuit not in use!). Nothing else. No mention of public interest. lexology.com Consider: Q silicon were used in way many more devices than Intel silicon, thus that "limited" exclusion order sought and won by BRCM back in 2007 could have affected the mobile market to a far, far greater extent than the current one being sought against Apple. So, explain to me why every single iphone should not be excluded until the infringement is remedied. Other points: 1. "Paying for the IP isnt Intel's decision but Apple's." I don't give a damn who pays, as long as one of them (Apple, ODMs, Intel) pays. 2. "Intel argues that they have no other mobile chipset revenue." All that argues for is maybe they should not get into 5G at all. Not for the judge to give them a pass on infringement because "sob, sob, I only got one customer, you honor." 3. "If the ITC actually granted a total exclusion order against all 2018 iPhones, then I would argue that there would be a substantial impact to the public. Total handset sales in the US would drop dramatically." I agree there would be a substantial impact on Apple, which Apple can fix easily by agreeing to terms. Consider the people who would buy an iphone, but now can't. If they must have a new phone (old iphone broke) and they absolutely refuse to buy a non-iphone, it's their choice. If they want a new iphone as an upgrade, but now they defer instead of buying a nice Pixel, it's also their choice. Total handset sales would drop some. But so what? The only lost sales would be iphones, as it should be, because those phones infringe on somebody's patents and Apple refuses to pay! The rest of the industry and the public would be just fine. What am I not gettign here?