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%

Nov 21 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JGoren who wrote (23248)	2/24/1999 2:51:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) of 152472

JG - Thanks for going to the Markman hearing. Some info on the patents you listed: Patent RE036017 is a reissue of 5088108 and both deal with making sure that in a single cell, with two different basestation transmitters transmitting the same thing, that the two basestations do not step on one another at the mobile. (Imagine that the mobile is right next to one tranmitter and far from the other. The further signal will be delayed by the extra distance and thus the mobile could be receiving a '1' from one transmitter and a '0' from the other.) This scheme (two basestations in one cell) is used for a variety of reasons, but the one given in the patent is to avoid radio shadows. For each mobile the basestations delay the signal differently depending on where that particular mobile is within the cell. I cannot see how this applies to anything that Qualcomm does. CDMAOne does not care about time diversity of this sort since the rake receiver removes it anyway (the two separate basestations essentially act as a bizarre kind of multipath.) The rake receiver uses the orthogonality of the Walsh codes and non-correlation of the PN code to remove any timing errors. Perhaps Ericsson is trying to use some little tiny piece of these patents, but if so I don't know what piece and in any case that is problematic for Ericsson (much more open to 'lack of novelty' claims by Qualcomm - for instance if they are trying to claim that they invented the concept of two basestations in one cell). If this is the best that Ericsson can do I think that they have a problem. Clark PS Note that I am not saying that the Ericsson patent isn't valid, only that it is probably a big big stretch to apply it to CDMAOne. PPS The English in patent 5088108 is something that needs to be read to be believed. I've never seen a 300 word sentence before.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next