More errors by Jaffe and Lerner

In the vicinity of page 35 of Innovation and Its Discontents, Jaffe and Lerner praised Qualcomm as a company that used patents properly. On August 7, 2007, a report from Los Angeles Bizjournals begins with the text:

Qualcomm Inc. engaged in "aggravated litigation abuse" and waived its rights to enforce the video transmission technology patents involved in its lawsuit with Broadcom Corp., a federal judge ruled Monday, August 6.

The bizjournal continued:

The video transmission technology patents cannot be enforced because Qualcomm deliberately concealed them from the Joint Video Team, a standards-setting group, according to a release.

The company also failed to produce thousands of documents related to the case until after the end of the January trial, which was considered misconduct. Qualcomm was also ordered to pay Broadcom's legal fees, according to a release.

San Diego-based Qualcomm (NASDAQ: QCOM) sued Broadcom in October 2005 alleging violation of video transmission patents. A jury sided with Broadcom, but in May the company said the 35,000 documents concealed from the trial by Qualcomm put the validity of the case into question, according to the Wall Street Journal.

According to a release, "The court concluded, 'In light of all the above evidence finally revealed, the eventual collapse of Qualcomm's concealment efforts exposes the carefully orchestrated plan and the deadly determination of Qualcomm to achieve its goal of holding hostage the entire industry.'"

With Mark Lemley NOT backing the work of Quillen and Webster on patent grant rate, one sees that there is not much left to the contentions raised by Jaffe and Lerner. They pretty much "got it wrong," and it's time to exit stage left.

**
One can find more on the Qualcomm matter:

Citing the misconduct of Qualcomm's employees, witnesses, and counsel before, during and after trial, the court found that "Broadcom proved this to be an exceptional case by clear and convincing evidence based on (1) Qualcomm's bad faith participation in the H.264 standard-setting body, the Joint Video Team (JVT); and (2) the litigation misconduct of Qualcomm through its employees, hired outside witnesses, and trial counsel during discovery, motions practice, trial and post-trial proceedings." According to the court, "Qualcomm closely monitored and participated in the development of the H.264 standard, all the while concealing the existence of at least two patents it believed were likely to be essential to the practice of the standard, until after the development was completed and the standard was published internationally. Then, without any prior letter, email, telephone call, or even a smoke signal, let alone attempt to license Broadcom, Qualcomm filed the instant lawsuit against Broadcom for infringement of the '104 and '767 patents."

"The court's findings indicate that this is one of the most serious and egregious cases of standards abuse and litigation misconduct that our industry has ever witnessed," said David J. Rosmann, Broadcom's Vice President of Intellectual Property Litigation. "While we are gratified with the court's ruling, we are also disappointed that Qualcomm chose to stoop to such tactics."