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 174.44

-0.4%

2:17 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Clarksterh who wrote (16899)	10/21/1998 10:46:00 PM
From: Ingenious	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Another reason could be that the patents they are asserting date back to 1988 but issued or re-issued only recently. Prior to GATT, it was common practice to keep key technology in the PTO by filing continuation patents. Perhaps Ericson filed a succession of continuation patents claiming priority to 1988 but not issuing until 1995-1996 time frame. This allowed E to make claims to new technology other companies developed in the public arena yet disclosed in their original patent dated 1988. This technique affectionately called a "submarine patent" allowed people, such as Lemelson and others, to "spring" a patent on another party when the technology flowered yet avoid defenses such as laches (ie sitting on your thumbs). Also, E may have also filed reissue patents within 2 years of the issuance of the latest patents which allowed them to modify the patents to read directly on competing technology. (Just for the record, post GATT (about June, 1995) submarine patents are no longer possible).

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next