"I am the best qualified person on the job right now"
Oh boy.
You know, my Qcom phone has an ASIC made by IBM that has Copyright notices from both Qualcomm and Intel. Are we seeing the wireless world flocking to their fab line just to avoid paying royalties? Is there a chance the person who left the Crawford trap door in the IBM contract just might not be working for Intel anymore?
I am not familiar with the Crawford patent. But, as one who is involved with design on a daily basis, I can tell you we strive to avoid infringing on all patented ideas and pursue licenses on the ones we cannot design around (in time to make our market window.) Has that pursuit been successfull 100% of the time? Well, no. Actually, it makes life interesting up until the time the project risks being cancelled.
"I firmly believe in patents and believe that a company should get what its worth on the market place. I have been just stating that just b/c one gets a patent doesn't mean an entirely different entity can't."
It appears that more than 60 companies have reached a mutual agreement of what Qualcomm's patents are worth.
But, I interpret your second sentence: an "entity" can claim a duplicate patent (just change the bandwidth and the color.) Doesn't that amount to theft, inadvertent that it may be?
To help you understand where I am coming from, here is a scenario: someone comes up with a set of design features that revolutionizes brake design for automobiles. Someone else needs it to save lives around locomotives. They change its size and color, makes it air-powered instead of hydraulic, and uses it on locomotives without licensing it (to benefit humanity.) Will the courts buy it? Since the pharmacutical industry has not collapsed, I doubt it.
The patent system should prevent me from shopping for a design solution in a patent database, change its color(whatever) or apply it to something with more wheels without licensing that patent.
To be able to use it, re-patent it and claim it as my own appears to refute the purpose of patents in the first place. Why isn't this exactly what ETSI knows it cannot do despite Ericsson's hopes and claims to the contrary?
I don't understand how you can assert bandwidth or frequency can limit the scope. Why use mind-numbingly lame arguments over electrical parameters or multiple applications to win duplicate patents? Is Ericy deliberately trying to blow their 1600+ patent portfolio just to avoid licensing a few CDMA patents from Qualcomm?
This will be the consequences of your arguments as I understand them. |
