Bux <<Unless you know that, generally speaking, patents must be applied for in each country that protection is desired one might conclude they have patented just about everything. Actually, the same patented technique is counted multiple times, one for each country that protection is desired. Some countries may bundle coverage but probably a more representative way to determine the number of patents a company holds is to do a patent search in one country only. The numbers won't appear nearly as impressive.>>
So you're the one giving Larson the bad advice? How can you say this with such seeming impunity? It may be in your better interest to contact a patent attorney to arrive at a better understanding. The same patent is not counted multiple times. Each time a new patent is applied for within a given country relative to telephone transmission standards of that country, that new patent must meet the particular criteria of that country's requirements, whether it be technical or technological. This is considered a new patent. Here's a post from the bull:
ragingbull.com
ragingbull.com
"Mr.Larson obviously fails to understand the significance of foreign patents and foregin telecom standards under which patents are filed. If you file a CDMA patent in one country, and turn around and file a patent describing similar technical characteristics in an adjoining country, the patents are nonetheless considered two separate patents under law. A main reason is that each country has it's own mobile or standards platform upon which transmission technology is founded.
For instance, TDMA transmission in the U.S. may not be the same as TDMA guided transmission in Mexico. If both countries utilize the same TDMA standard and have a patent sharing agreement, as do European countries utilizing the EPO (european patent office), then one patent based on the standard is generally applicable to both countries. One patent applied for under the EPO, which is applicable, say to the GSM standard, would also apply to all 18 or so members of the EPO. However; if France, who is also an EPO member, requires separate terms, technical and technology conditions under which licensees must apply for patents applicable to the European GSM standard, then you, the patentee must also apply for a separate patent in France to cover your technology in that country. This change in France could be as slight as transmission methodologies within a given frequency (there are many exceptions) in which you must adhere to particular French guidelines.
This patent in France is considered a separate patent. Why? Suppose that Alcatel utilizes the "French" methodology all over the world in order to "underskirt" the European GSM guidelines and avoid paying licensees - through this small technicality? Alcatel would be free to utilize IDC technology because French law is basically allowing them to do so. Thus, IDC must patent THEIR technology to conform to French guidelines. If Mr. Larson believes that this is anything other than a separate patent, then he needs to revisit the issue.
If IDC states that it has 800 separately recognizable patents, then that is what they have - 800 patents; not 14 spelled out the same way in 60 different countries. This is absurd reasoning and Mr. Larson does not quite understand patent law and/or CDMA/TDMA/GSM/PDC standards processing around the globe.
How does he think that NTT has been able to get away with utilizing IDC's TDMA technology these past eight years? NTT was a main leader in establishing the PDC standard in Japan. The "PDC standard", although a TDMA platform, is also a registered "technology". They basically took IDC's TDMA ideas, varied certain aspects, arrived at the same result, and called it a new Japanese Standard (or technology if you will) - PDC.
IDC received over 60 patents from Don Schilling alone for the U.S. One only needs go to the US Patent office and study all CDMA patents under IDC, ITC, et. al. to properly conclude that even using Mr. Larson's incorrect method, you arrive at 10 X Mr. Larson's number.
The significance of the ITU taking control of the communication picture for 3g is that ALL PARTICIPANTS WHO WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS 3G STANDARD MUST LICENSE TECHNOLOGY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE ITU. There won't be any of this France wants to do something it's way, and Germany will take only these parts, and Japan only these, and ERICY only agrees to these issues, and so on. It's all encompasing.
It is a confusing picture; one which Mr. Larson obviously fully appreciates. I hope this helps."
"cavewoman. in last post, should state that Mr. Larson doesn't fully appreciate the separate standards processes of different countries and regions.
Also, IDC received over 60 CDMA patents from one man for the U.S. alone. How did Mr. Larson discombobulate these 60 patents, as well as all the new CDMA developments IDC has garnered since 1995, into 14? It's funny math and only Mr. Larson has developed the ability to erase viable patents in his own manner and method.
Ge. IDC has 14 CDMA patents. They've been in operation for 20 years and have managed to scrape 14 patents together. I guess that is why they call it the fool (page)." |
