Qualcomm Inc (QCOM)

[Jim Mullens]

Slacker, Re: BRCM V QCOM / ITC ruling, and

“I have clearly never said that. I see this as a very narrow issue. All of the extraneous motivations or WCDMA license negotiations have zero impact on how I see this ruling”

In reply to by question >>>

“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???

Sorry, Slacker, but what you are saying is certainly not **clear** to me as it clearly seems to me that BRCM is clearly doing exactly what I stated above, yet you apparently think differently.

In this very narrow issue with extremely broad consequences, BRCM has clearly acted as a patent troll-

+ purchasing a patent in your words that is “small, non-essential” and perhaps “obvious”
+ a patent that was never put to use by its inventors (over 10 years ago)
+ a patent that was deemed viable by our unique jury system that permits folks of average intelligence to decide issues they lack technical / legal expertise to fully comprehend
+ using such “patent” to apparently extract terms that would destroy the Q’s business model, terms none of the Q some 160 licensees (many with vastly superior IPR) were able to obtain.
+ harming eventually **ALL** participants in the industry (component / handset mfgs, carriers, consumers.

I just don’t believe such actions by BRCM reflect the intent of our patent system as if such actions are permitted by the courts-

+ it will only encourage others (patent trolls) to follow suit
+ make a mockery of the patent / IPR system-
......one patent (small, non-essential / perhaps obvious) and an aggressive company (with perhaps outside incentive) against 1,000s of patents (many foundational) bringing down a vital (leading edge) company / the whole industry.
+ result in more costly / lengthy litigation
+ provide no safeguards to current IPR licensing system
+ destroy the incentive to broadly innovate
+ disrupt the standards setting process
+ result in less competition and more costly products.

Re: “Sorry Jim, but I cant imagine you making this same argument if Qualcomm was suing Broadcom using one of the MIMO patents that they picked up from Airgo. I think you would be singing a different tune then....”

That’s quite an extrapolation and an “interesting” debating technique given Qualcomm to my knowledge has not taken such an action in its 20 year history and is defensively responding to world wide attacks on its business model which is supported by the vast majority of industry participants, except a handful of incumbents attempting to maintain their dominance with BRCM’s assistance.

In any event, as this appears to be another one of our “circling” debates, this will be my last post in this series and you may have the last word if you so wish.