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 (148938)	9/5/2018 3:31:48 PM
From: Qurious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197227

The exclusion order on all new downstream products incorporating Q chipsets was what forced Q to pony up $900M to BRCM. The USITC knew that. Suppose the product cycle in this case is 5 years, would the ITC still have grandfathered in all current models in the public interest? Of course not. It would have been a meaningless order. The ITC judgment clearly took into account what it takes to enable Q to remedy/settle the infringement. Besides, how can it possibly be in the public interest to ban importation of all new model handsets which used Q chipsets? If Q did not cough up $900M to settle, US consumers would have had to live with old model handsets forever. In the event, the ITC would have failed to protect the public interest. Do you agree? The only reason it could claim the exclusion order served the public interest was because the order forced Q to settle, and settle promptly. Thus, the key to any ITC ruling should be to compel the parties to resolve the infringement. Anything else, public interest included, is hogwash.

To: slacker711 who wrote (148938)	9/5/2018 5:14:18 PM
From: Jeff Vayda	Respond to of 197227

Let's watch that mission creep...Your 'public interest' does not equate to 'public health'. <<FWIW, the USITC is mandated to consider the public interest when considering an exclusion order. > usitc.gov Under the statute, if the Commission finds a violation of section 337, it will issue an exclusion order to keep violating products out of the country (and may also issue cease and desist orders to violators), unless it finds an order should not be issued after considering the effects of a remedial order on: the public health* and welfare;* competitive conditions in the United States economy; the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States; and United States consumers.>>