Slacker, Re: BRCM / QCOM /ITC, and
+ “Yes, they have a wider portfolio, but Qualcomm has ALWAYS stated that violating one claim of one patent triggers a royalty.
“wider”, hardly gives justice to the enormity of the difference
+ “It doesnt make a bit of difference if you developed the patents or if you acquired them.
Agreed, as the jury was so instructed at the Santa Ana trial. The difference here appears that this recently purchased patent (extraneous/ obscure/ questionable) was done so for the express purpose of negotiating leverage against the Q’s business model (read patent trolling).
+ “It isnt a surprise, when the shoe is on the other foot all of the previous talk about the importance of intellectual property protection goes out the window (both by Q and its shareholders).”
Again, we’re talking about equivalence --- a size 1,000 shoe vs 1/5000.
Of course IPR protection is vital, but so is the patent system and the future of innovation throughout the world.
Do I have it right, that you believe a purchased patent (extraneous/ obscure/ questionable) deemed viable by the opinion of a jury w/o any technical / legal knowledge **is equivalent / can outweigh** an internally developed patent portfolio in the 1,000 developed over 20 some years, and as such destroy a companies / the world’s incentive to innovate???
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
