US watchdog legal fight against Qualcomm and pushy chip deals closes with argument over how awful lawyers are It's been a couple of weeks of contradictory arguments in US trade watchdog the FTC's lawsuit against chip designer Qualcomm. So perhaps it was appropriate that the whole thing ended with a meta-contradiction concerning the nature of the legal system itself. In his closing arguments for Qualcomm – which has been accused of …
"But, Van Nest, argued that the judge should disregard those claims as "highly exaggerated," because those executives are attorneys. And you know you can't trust what attorneys say."
Frank honest from a lawyer. Something's wrong there for sure.
Bankers, lawyers and criminals. But I repeat myself.
There is no US law that provides for FRAND. FRAND is a contractual agreement entered into voluntarily by companies choosing to participate in a standards process that requires it (as the LTE and 5G standards processes did)
It applies to all companies that agreed to participate all over the world, or at least in any country that enforces contract law. The question isn't over whether FRAND is enforceable, no one disagrees with that. The question is exactly what the terms mean, since there is some potential wiggle room which is where this dispute comes - i.e. whether you can license based on a percentage of the cost of the entire device or only on the cost of the device that implements your IP, and whether you can tie other IP your company owns to that license in an all or nothing fashion.
Wow, I think I'd move out of concern for my safety if nothing else if I lived in such a criminal hotbed!
I've been called exactly once, many years ago, and when I called in to the number the night before as instructed and entered my ID number a recording said I wasn't needed and didn't have to show up the next morning.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
