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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (16834)	10/20/1998 11:52:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 152472

Maurice, Does Japan rethink its position, based on todays news? Regards, Michael

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (16834)	10/21/1998 12:17:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

Damn - now I see L M Ericsson maybe just stalling for time and not giving up the Texas case at all. Oh well, leopards and their spots. Mqurice Subject: Qualcomm - Coming Into Buy Range To: jpbrody From: JGoren Oct 20 1998 7:02PM EST Reply #16824 of 16839 Very interesting take on the patent situation. Thanks. I don't have access to the pleadings, so I don't know what claims have actually been dismissed. It sounds like Ericy has to dismiss its claims on the old patent and bring new ones on the "added to." Wouldn't this delay everything, since the patent office will take some time to approve or disapprove of the amendment? It sounds like, on the surface, you should be correct that "starting" over has a plus but a big minus--certainly for any other type of case, but patent suits are a special animal. Could be a delaying tactic to buy more time, cloud the issues in the suit; could strengthen Ericy case, but only in time. Thanks again, for your enlightening thoughts. Subject: Qualcomm - Coming Into Buy Range To: jpbrody From: JGoren Oct 20 1998 7:29PM EST Reply #16825 of 16839 I re-read the press release and see what you mean, jpbrody. "Ericsson dropped the three patents from the lawsuit shortly before Ericsson was due to disclose in court proceedings its interpretation of the meaning and scope of the allegedly infringed claims and several months before the scheduled trial date in February 1999." My interpretation of what the foregoing means is that the judge had asked for submissions from the parties for entry by the judge of a pretrial order. The parties set forth in some detail what their allegations are, what facts the parties agree upon, and what is in dispute. Even if a litigant has pleaded something, if it is not put in the pretrial order as in dispute, it isn't in controversy and cannot be "tried." Therefore, the submission works like an amendment to the pleadings, so that the judge can focus on what is really left to be decided. Based on the submissions from the parties, the judge prepares and signs a pretrial order that sets forth the issues in controversy and to be tried.