The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread.

QCOM 173.99

+1.4%

10:02 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (1194)	12/7/1999 4:11:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (2) of 12231

Darrell - You diss'ing me? <g> I have no axe to grind and I did read (all except the last 3 pages) and understand the patent. Did you? (Note as proof of lack of bias, I have praised Wi-Lan's TDMA patent, albeit with caveats, and I am not an Wi-Lan stockholder although given their recent rocket I wish I had been.) In general the only part of a patent that will not be shredded in a court is the smallest chunk that meets the criteria of patentability (i.e. originality and non-obviousness). For some patents this is a theme running through the claims and for others it is one or two of the claims by themselves. IMO, in the case of 538 the theme is too general to meet the originality criteria since it is 'mobile cell CDMA'. The claims do not feed on each other in any other way. So, we fall back to the second method of proving validity, and that is that one of the claims by itself meets the criteria. The disadvantage to this is that the other pieces are left out in the cold. This is the case, IMO, with 538. Clark PS Note that Qualcomm uses what I refer to as 'claim stake' patents to mark a standard. These are similar in some ways to what you would like to claim for 538 in that each piece is individually obvious, but together they are non-obvious. However, Qualcomm's patents are very precise and when taken as a whole (or even when missing any one or two claims) do not encompass any existing standards. Thus they can qualify as original. The same statement cannot be made about 538. (Note on Qualcomm claim stakes - claim stakes have limited applicability for an infringement case against, for instance, W-CDMA, but they do make a very cut and dry case against someone using IS-95 without paying royalty fees.)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next