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 154.13-3.3%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: AlfaNut who wrote (67985)8/19/2007 7:56:05 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer  Read Replies (1) of 197297
 
Just citing prior art was not my point. The point is whether the so-called patent based on that prior art is obvious or novel. If it is obvious, then the courts (in the U.S. anyway) are going to invalidate a lot of patents. Many of the key CDMA patents and related technology are prior art on which new patents are based. That doesn't mean the new patents are invalid. It does mean that the newer patents COULD be invalidated if the method or process was an obvious extension of an earlier patent.

Yes, some of the QCOM original patents would incorporate the method first proposed by Heddy Lamar and her husband back in the 1940's for a method of sending coded messages that would be difficult for an enemy to decipher. But that original patent, which really describes CDMA conceptually, has long expired.

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

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News