- Related Stories
-
Import ban slapped on some 3G handsets
June 7, 2007 -
Apple, AT&T stores prepare for iPhone frenzy
June 6, 2007 -
Is Motorola's cell phone revamp enough?
May 15, 2007
(continued from previous page)
Qualcomm believes it's unlikely that the ban will actually go into effect. Lou Lupin, Qualcomm's general counsel, said the company plans to petition President Bush to veto the order. At the same time, Qualcomm is seeking to get a stay to the enforcement of the ban from the Federal Court of Appeals, which hears cases regarding patent cases.
Under federal law, the president has 60 days to review the deal based on a recommendation from the U.S. Trade Representative. Before reaching their decisions, both the ITC and the White House are supposed to consider whether their actions are in the public interest. But if history is any indicator, the likelihood of the White House overturning the order may not be very high.
"It is correct that it has rarely been the case that the White House grants a veto," Lupin said. "Having said that, there has rarely been a case like this one where the rights of third parties were denied due process and the decision has had such a detrimental impact on public safety and consumers."
Of the more than 600 investigations instituted by the ITC since 1974, only five have resulted in exclusion orders that were rejected by the White House, said Bryan Schwartz, a partner in the intellectual property section of the law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff in Cleveland. The last time that happened was in 1986, added Schwartz, who has represented clients in a number of ITC proceedings.
Verizon's Stark said her company is also planning to file for an immediate stay of the ITC's decision with a federal appeals court and to lobby for a presidential veto of the order. She said she wasn't sure whether Verizon would be filing the documents solo or with other wireless carriers.
She added that the order is unfair because wireless companies and manufacturers weren't able to be a party to the liability portion of the proceedings, and they were never accused of patent infringement themselves or found to have infringed.
"It violates our principles of due process and fairness by punishing us when we haven't been accused of anything or found to infringe," she said.
She declined to discuss the ruling's potential impact on Verizon's future product roll-outs or sales, saying only, "this isn't final for 60 days...we're confident that we have a very strong case for appeal."
Sanjay Jha, chief operating officer for Qualcomm and president of Qualcomm CDMA Technologies, said it was crucial that the ban not go into effect at all, especially with the holiday shopping season coming up in a few months.
"All the carriers set out plans to launch large number of phone models later this year," he said. "And they're keen to make sure their plans for growth for second half is not impacted or impeded. The best way to ensure that is for all of us to implore the president to veto this order."
But even if the legal efforts fail, Forrester's Golvin said it's very likely that mobile operators and handset makers will be able to exert enough pressure on Qualcomm and Broadcom to reach some kind of agreement.
"I find it very hard to imagine that Qualcomm and Broadcom wouldn't reach some kind of settlement very soon," he said. "I'm sure all the cell phone operators and handset manufacturers that have come to rely on Qualcomm technology will put a significant amount of pressure on them to resolve this. There's just too much at stake for them not to."
See more CNET content tagged:
Qualcomm Inc., ban, handset, 3G, mobile operator
So then how in the world could a world without patents be that much different from today... minus all the huge litigation costs and headaches?
Patents are one of those things like burning witches -- people are aghast at first at the concept of abolition ("you want your children posessed and fed to the devil????") but after it happens everyone realizes it was ridiculous or superfluous in the first place.
And lets make one thing clear: this will have ZERO impact on public safety as they're claiming! nobody needs a 3G radio to make them self safer...
greed, which can motivate people to invent and produce profitable
products and services, envy is entirely negative. Cell phone makers
satisfy mlllions of customers, but sethwr merely satisfies his own
resentment and bitterness.
3G in and of itself does not help public safety, however their argument is less high tech phones will be sold like the ones that include GPS, which can be helpful in safety situations
Whenever a competitor is restricted in the marketplace by legal rulings like this, it reduces innovation. Qualcomm is the leader in 3G chipsets because it is more innovative than its competitors.
Restricting QCOM will certainly help its competitors who were less innovatieve. Just how this increases innovation escapes me.
It seems to me to be a rather large stretch to say that because somebody is stealing something if they copy an idea. This is especially true when you don't even need to make an attempt to implement the idea, to say nothing of trying to sell it in the marketplace, to prevent others from trying. No wonder there are so many rumors of corporations buying patents just to bury them to prevent competition to their own products.
However, if you work at a big corporation and you work vigorously, coming up innovative ideas for the management. Mostly the top management takes your bright ideas, but later if you find your bright ideas are rewarding your boss, not you, then what would you say? Okay, let the boss reap the benefit, and I am glad I will continue to be his workhorse. Is that fair?
All the latest generation of mobile phones in USA is
an old generation that was outdated 3 to 4 years in Korea and Japan. The reason is that Verizon and AT&T has enough broadband networks that don't need to run to meet 4G at a huge expense. On the other hand, Sprint has got 80% of 2.3 GhZ spectrum in USA and is striving to build 4G network by the end of 2008.
The reason is smaller markets like Korea and Japan are much easier to convert to new mobile technology becasue it is easier to shift away from the aftermarket of the conventional technology.Actually, WiMAX and EVDO are two rival technologies whose competition, if extended over a decade,will sacrifice consumers to a large extent. Their competition should come to an end and hopefuly the two technologies should find a way to mutually complement tecnological limitations. And patent infringements should be settled between parties to maximize the public good, minimize the infriger's burden and maximize the inventor's compensation.
- The article is inaccurate. CDMA phones only are affected, not GSM
- by CLShortFuse June 9, 2007 9:11 AM PDT
- The patent only applies to CDMA's EVDO not GSM phones. AT&T and T-Mobile are NOT affected by this.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- wCDMA is still CDMA
- by FirePig June 9, 2007 3:48 PM PDT
- The article is accurate, you are not very well informed on this issue.
- Like this
-
(20 Comments)Although GSM only phones are not effected by this ruling, all "future" 3G phones including wCDMA (also called 3G and UMTS) and CDMA2000 (EV-DO) will be effected. Qualcomm chipsets are used in most 3G phones (in the generic sense).
GSM is a TDMA air interface and has much more in common with the Japanese PDC air interface than it does to the wCDMA (UMTS) air interface.
CDMA is a very different air interface which is used in UMTS and CDMA2000.