Interdigital Communication(IDCC) 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.

Technology Stocks : Interdigital Communication(IDCC)

IDCC 346.18

-2.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3930)	2/14/2000 4:09:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) of 5195

LOL. Darrell. I have Bux on ignore, but he apparently is still shamelessly copying the tactics of the Ericsson lawyers. He must think it makes him appear to be the most intelligent member of the Feckless Debating Society. By golly, IS-95 must be the same as CDMA2000 or how else can QCOM support the claim that it owns CDMA if it needs patents from a fringe player like IDC? By sharp contrast, IDC has asserted point blank that it doesn't need QCOM's patents to implement fixed and mobile B-CDMA. Point blank! ......i would suggest that if you're going to consistently state that the burden of proof as to whether IS-95 is CDMA2000 defacto lies with those proving otherwise (you assume you are right, therefore the burden of proof lies on those who oppose your non-legal opinion) that you find another subject to debate. From the IDC Markman brief: By contrast,Ericsson appears to focus on what the claims do not cover, rather than what they mean. ....Ericsson's proposed construction ignores and deviates from the plain wording of the claims; ....adds terms and limitations that simply do not exist in the claim language or the specifications; ....attempts to read comprising claims as consisting essentially of claims; ....imports excessive structure from the specifications into the claims; ....and misinterprets the prosecution history and the holdings in the prior Motorola litigation between InterDigital and Motorola, Inc. ( Motorola )..... The parties have exchanged claim construciton charts with proposed interpretations of virtually every word, term, and phrase in the Asserted Patents. Regrettably, the parties have not been able to agree on the meaning of any appreciable number of claim terms. Markman does not require the Court to provide an interpretation of every word, term, and phrase in a claim. Message 12774523

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next