CNNMoney.com
Companies Economy International Corrections Pre-market trading After-hours trading Winners/losers/actives Bonds Currencies Commodities Money Magazine Retirement Mutual Funds Taxes Ask the Expert Money 101 Autos Loan Center Best Places to Live Calculators Mortgage Rates Personal tech Big Tech blog Techland blog Sectors and stocks Fortune 500 techs Tech Talk 100 best places to launch Ultimate resource guide Small biz makeovers FSB 100 Ask & Answer Fortune 500 Technology Investing Management Rankings Main Create portfolio Edit portfolio Create Alerts Edit Alerts

The International Trade Commission is banning imports of some cell phones containing Qualcomm (QCOM) chips that infringe on patents held by rival Broadcom (BRCM). Qualcomm’s measured response: Call President Bush.

In a statement, CEO Paul Jacobs says the ban, which would affect a passel of new phones that U.S. operators AT&T (T), Verizon (VZ) and Sprint (S) are hoping to unveil later this year, would limit consumer choice. “We will ask the White House to veto this decision and avoid turning back the clock on the tremendous gains that have been achieved in mobile broadband communications, disaster preparedness and emergency response,” Jacobs says in the statement.

But will Bush take the call? The president already has a lot on his plate; complicating matters, CEO Jacobs and his father, Qualcomm co-founder Irwin Mark Jacobs, aren’t exactly big supporters of the Republican Party.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Dr. Irwin Jacobs has donated some $390,000 to political candidates and committees since 1997 - almost all of it to Democrats and dem causes. Paul Jacobs has given $49,000, primarily to the left side of the aisle, according to the center’s data, with one big exception: In 2003 he donated $2,000 to President George W. Bush. (Irwin Jacobs gave $1,000 to Bush in 1999.)

But some of the other companies seeking presidential intervention on Qualcomm’s behalf are staunch financial supporters of the president and his party. Verizon, for example, has donated some $15 million since the 1990 election cycle, with $9.4 million, or 62%, going to Republicans.

Posted by stephaniemehta 3:19 pm 15 Comments comment | Add a comment

I must say that I agree with Crazy Willy. This case is multi-faceted. We rarely know all of the details, but our judicial penalties are extreme as well. If they are going to hand down a judgement, why not order Qualcomm to pay Broadcom a certain amount for each infringing chip that is imported? Clearly, the two companies are not able to negotiate this themselves.

As for Qualcomm, they keep using the line that paying Broadcom a fee for each device would ruin its business model. It’s obviously time to change the business model.

The article is just another sad commentary on our times.

Posted By SH, Texas : July 9, 2007 12:00 am

Seems like everyone is just using this story to take another shot at GW. Where was the editor for this piece? It is pure conjecture on the part of one so-called journalist. The story should have discussed the pros and cons of the patent case.

Posted By Maguire, Los Gatos, CA : June 14, 2007 6:32 pm

This has very little to do with politics and plenty to do with technology. The penalty imposed on Qualcomm is ridiculous and will only cause harm to the public good. People, I dislike Bush more than the next guy but Broadcomm’s patent is very miniscule compared to the technology and public good that comes from Qualcomm’s products with respect to this issue. If this decision isn’t overturned, start thinking about living in the cellular stone age.

Posted By Sai, Bay Area, CA : June 11, 2007 2:01 pm

Yikes, why bother with trademarks and patents… if you’ve got money and the direct number to the White House you can copy anything you want… wait isn’t that what China does? I thought I was in the USA!

Posted By Sue, Dallas, Tx : June 11, 2007 10:27 am

Remeber that UMTS or WCDMA, the 3G technology used by AT&T/Cingular/whoever they are, is a Qualcomm product subject to the patent ruling. Not ideal for the new AT&T and iPhone

Posted By Steve, Renton, WA : June 10, 2007 7:41 pm

Without directly addressing the article I think the comments from the scarely literate group of cavemen above reveal how little the public understands the issues. The biggest conclusion to be drawn here the general ignorance of the ITC/General Public and the disproportionate penalties of our current legal system.

Posted By Crazy Willy, Sioux Falls : June 10, 2007 6:45 pm

Interesting that the article did not mention that the biggest winner of the present decision might be Apple with it’s iPhone and AT&T as the carrier of the iPhone

Posted By Rick, Pittsburgh, PA : June 9, 2007 1:59 pm

Why bother with rules and laws? Gomer Bush doesnt use or need the Constitution nor, the Bill of Rights…we can Paris Hilton/OJ/Ollie North this country and rule by Devine Right of Money.

Posted By robert jay : June 9, 2007 12:23 pm

Quaolcomm is not an oil company. Dubyah on ly listens to oil companies anyway. And why, after donating big bucks to the democrats, woujld Jacobs expect any help from Bush?

Posted By David Allen Olympia, WA : June 8, 2007 11:15 pm

How do you know president makes decison based on how money someone contributes? I hope this is your guess or personal way of working and not the way president works.

Posted By Bab, WA : June 8, 2007 6:11 pm

What goes around, comes around. For years, Qualcomm has held the wireless industry hostage due to their patents on key technology. Now that the table has been turned, and they’re being held hostage, Qualcomm goes crying to the government to bail them out. I say, live by the sword, die by the sword. Qualcomm is getting what they deserve.

Posted By G Norris, Atlanta GA : June 8, 2007 6:07 pm

Its pretty sad that you resort to stating political financial contributions to see weather a president will act, if that doesn’t tell us about the state of democracy then I don’t know what does. How about letting the WH make a decision based on what will further stimulate trade, Intellectual Property protection or Pirate go for all? Question of the time aint it?

Posted By gerb, ny, ny : June 8, 2007 5:35 pm

I find it depressing that the amount of money donated to a party has a direct bearing on the government’s response. We’ve known for a while that politicians are for sale, but it gets really frustrating to see it all the time.

Posted By Jim, Omaha NE : June 8, 2007 5:04 pm

It is sickening that decisions that should be based on US law are being politicized when the obvious answer to the problem is for Qualcomm to pay Broadcom for their infringing products. Anything short of this is government aided STEALING. Theft, plain and simple. The argument that an injunction will hurt the US economy is ridiculous and only serves an attempt to create political pressure.

Posted By Damon Smith, Seabrook, Texas : June 8, 2007 4:04 pm

kinda of rediculous that in todays society you can overturn a government ruling with some money and a call to the president. absolutely rediculous. Not to mention that this is a patent infringement and if this works just think about the amount of chaos it would bring from other rulings on patents. If this works our government is screwed up. Seriously. you might as well get rid of all patents. heck get rid of all laws if you can buy your way out.

Posted By john, saint louis, mo. : June 8, 2007 3:55 pm

To send a letter to the editor about The Browser: Analyzing the tech biz, click hereTop of page

Got a news tip? Send it to The Browser


© 2008 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 BigCharts.com Inc. All rights reserved. Please see our Terms of Use.
MarketWatch, the MarketWatch logo, and BigCharts are registered trademarks of MarketWatch, Inc.
Intraday data delayed 15 minutes for Nasdaq, and 20 minutes for other exchanges. All Times are ET.
Intraday data provided by Interactive Data Real-Time Services and subject to the Terms of Use.
Historical, current end-of-day data, and splits data provided by Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data.
Fundamental data provided by Hemscott.
SEC Filings data provided by Edgar Online Inc..
Earnings data provided by FactSet CallStreet, LLC.