The background to this story reveals this action by the ITC to be a transaparent ruse by European Cell Phone Providers to slow down the rapid adoption of Qualcomm’s new CDMA signalling standard for 3G cell phones and a blatant abuse of patent law to hamstring a competitor with a technologically superior product.
The Europen Plaintiff in this case, Broadcom, bought a tiny and obscure Cell Phone Power System Manufacturer about 6 months ago that had a patent portfolio that may or may not have slightly been infringed by by Qualcomm’s new chip.
The ITC rules for cases of this type should be set up in such a way as to not allow such an obviously commercial busniess strategy to be pursued through patent law. Qualcomm’s CDMA Standard is triumphing in the marketplace and like many maketplace losers Broadcom has responded with a litigation strategy rather than with product innovation.
Um... Broadcom isn’t European. They’re American.
Broadcom won a court case six months ago that proved that Qualcomm was infringing on three of their patents.
Nokia’s going to get screwed by this. Try again.
“The ITC rules for cases of this type should be set up in such a way as to not allow such an obviously commercial busniess strategy to be pursued through patent law.”
Isn’t patent protection itself an ‘obviously commercial business strategy’?
Here’s the scene: “Hey boss, that other company is infringing.” Boss: “Let’s sue ‘em.” Lawsuit goes through. Competitor ceases and desists. Company’s revenues go up.
No one sues for infringement on principle.
Whether or not there is a strategy, the background to this story says to me Qualcomm is infringing on patents belonging to Broadcom by importing infringing products into the USA. That’s not legit - any other ruling by the ITC would promote importation-infringement anarchy.