Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 163.32

+2.3%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dave who wrote (16579)	10/15/1998 8:27:00 PM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Wow, you are really good at nit picking and twisting words. Your source is the Q. I would recall that as a biased source. Who said where I got my info from? Actually if you read all of my posts I use QCOM on very sparingly for this exact reason. I am getting my info from Gregg Powers independant research, what ETSI said earlier, and other places. I WILL NOT get into a pissing contest with you about this. I am confident that from the patents that I have looked up that QCOM has extensive and EXTREMELY important patents. I believe independantly that they do indeed have blocking IPR. As far as rake reciever patents that is fine. If Ericcsson has similar patents whatever, QCOM still has the origional and controlling patents for CDMA. For changing the arguement, lets do so. Who has patents for Power control in a CDMA system? Who has patents for Soft Handoff (albeit under attack)? I could go on like this for a long time. If you don't have fast power control in all current applications of CDMA for handsets you are totally and completely sunk. Rake recievers and other stuff can be designed around. QCOM controls many such patents not just the few that I mentioned here. Unless you have some technical knowledge how can you evaluate the importance of specific patents? They aren't. I have posted the number of patents Ericy has on CDMA implementations. Again you beg the question "how important are their patents to the current and future implementations of CDMA?" If they are spraying the wall with random patents hoping that one proves to be a blocking one then they are up a creek. As I am sure you now anyone can patent anything, but if noone else wants to use your ideas then all you have is worthless paper! LIke the Q and W-CDMA, right? ARe you going to now admit that the Q's earlier patents on CDMA may not cover wideband applications? Sounds like you are about to. This is where your genius for twisting and mangling someone elses words truly shows itself. I never have and never will say that this example applies to CDMA. This example was used to show exactly what it shows, one company blindly patenting everything and hoping that they can get someone else to pay them for it. The purpose of the vibration mode of a pager and the purpose of the vibration mode of a phone may be similar but you CANNOT say that the applications are similar. Just as you cannot say that while the engine of an airplane and the engine of a car have a similar purpose but you cannot say that the patents of one apply to the other! CDMA is CDMA is CDMA. If you need to use power control on one version and you didn't specify the spreading width of your power control in your patent then I would assume that your patent has applicability to all CDMA. All of the QCOM patents that I have seen are bandwidth independant, thus they are applicable to IS-95 or W-CDMA or W-CDMA NA or whatever other flavors of CDMA you want to quote me. They are only non applicable when the CDMA system doesn't use the IS-95 method of spreading and power control.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next