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 175.07

+2.6%

Dec 3 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ingenious who wrote (16909)	10/22/1998 3:06:00 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) of 152472

Thanks for your post re submarine patents. Not sure I completely understand. Could you expand your thoughts for our enlightenment? Generally, the law at the time of trial or appeal is applied if the law has changed. Therefore, wouldn't Ericy have a problem in "gradfathering" its submarine patents--which might have been valid if asserted prior to 1995 GATT--should not be able to be asserted with a post-1995 amendment in a 1998 lawsuit? If you know, does GATT contain a provision allowing a patent owner to amend pre-1995 patents? I would have to assume so, if the Patent Office approved the amendments, as Ericy claims.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next