SI
SI
discoversearch

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 159.42-1.2%Jan 16 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: rkral who wrote (67879)8/18/2007 12:10:56 AM
From: Rich Bloem  Read Replies (2) of 197271
 
RKAL, the more one thinks about this IPR hornets nest, you have to realize that something has to be do done at the USPO level. For instance, the 761 patent was issued 2 months ago. Now common sense would tell you that if Q is actually using this method, it was either obvious or they also have a patent with a different description. One way or another, Q was practising this art many months and perhaps years before this patent was issued.

It is obvious to me that the USPO simply is unable to handle the current state of the art in technology. They don't have the people or the expertise to really understand the state of the art and they are issuing patents simply because their search engines (maybe Google? (ggg)) doesn't show something with the same name, And, to clear their backlog, "VOILA" a patent number is issued.

Although, I am not sure that I agree with some of the new patent law ideas that congress has put forward, I think that I do agree with the idea of allowing comments from the industry regarding a patent before it is final. There has to be something done to eliminate the never ending lawsuits.

Without doing something the technology industry is going to have to allot a tremendous amount of overhead to support legal and the guys with the big bucks will gobble up the inventors with the small pocket books. Just look at the automotive industry as an example. I forget the name of the case but the company that got sued because it added a function to the accelerator is a perfect example of the patent office not living up to it's charter.

It is time to get back to the idea that a patent has to be NOVEL. Not simply an obvious additive.

----------------------------------------------------

Nokia claims QUALCOMM infringement of five patents in ITC filing (ITC Inv. No. 337-2561):
Patent Issue
Number Date Patent Title
---
7,236,761 6/26/2007 Balanced circuit arrangement and method
for linearizing such an arrangement
-- tinyurl.com
---
6,714,091 3/30/2004 VCO with programmable output power
-- tinyurl.com
---
6,292,474 9/18/2001 Multi-frequency band nyktu-mode radio receiver and
associated method having shared circuit elements
-- tinyurl.com
---
5,896,562 4/20/1999 Transmitter/receiver for transmitting and receiving
of an RF signal in two frequency bands
-- tinyurl.com
---
5,752,172 5/12/1998 Distributed transmitter output power control
circuit and method for a radio telephone
-- tinyurl.com;

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext