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 Incorporated (QCOM)
QCOM 174.690.0%Dec 24 12:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: JGoren who wrote (11561)6/17/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: Dave  Read Replies (1) of 152472
 
JGoren:

RE: "I fail to see how MOT can show damages because the two products do not really compete with each other--one being CDMA and the other analog. They compete with other, more traditionally designed phones within their platforms. If MOT had had a CDMA StarTac phone in the market at the time, it might have lost some sales."

So, what you are saying is that if someone comes up for a different use for your patent, you don't have to pay royalties to that entity? Just b/c MOT lost the temporary injunction doesn't necessarily mean that MOT lost the case. Intel didn't get a temporary injunction against Intergraph. Does that mean Intel will lose in that case? Give me a break. If you knew anything about Patent Law, you would look at the claims, and read the claims in view of the Q Phone. I haven't even seen the mechanical design patent(s) covering the StarTac. Have you?

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

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News