Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting 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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 180.72

-0.1%

Nov 3 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: jackmore who wrote (57643)	12/12/2006 7:16:26 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) of 196423

If this view were to hold there would be little to no incentive to innovate Agreed. A very good, perhaps the best, criticism of the "all essential patents are equal" argument. But how to incorporate it into a market-driven scheme that rewards the innovators more than the followers when the market views both as relatively equal if their contributions are similarly "essential"? The market doesn't care how good your stuff might be as compared to someone else's if both are mandatory. And if both are mandatory, their value becomes roughly equalized by market forces. Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that a humdrum patent can be worked around a lot more easily than a set of patents like the CDMA ones. I don't know.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next