Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brihack who wrote (610)	8/5/1999 10:19:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Welcome to the thread ! (Ramsey -- am I allowed to do this ?) Jon. eom.

To: Brihack who wrote (610)	8/5/1999 10:23:00 PM
From: GO*QCOM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Geat Post!Very intriguing read.Dose the term "in chambers" mean a district judge is currently working on a ruling as we speak or is this a prep for a ruling later?

To: Brihack who wrote (610)	8/6/1999 1:47:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Brihack - You certainly appear on the scene with a bang! An attachment to the suit lists 19 specific patents, if anyone is interested. No much else of interest in the attachments, although the original file has been "in chambers" quite a bit over the last two weeks. I am interested if it isn't too much trouble. The reason is that I looked at all the patents applied for by Telular and none appeared to be "technically and commercially necessary and essential to make and sell WLL products using CDMA.". However, Telular may have acquired some patents via acquisition or purchase which, of course, do not show up in such a search. In addition, this whole suit/counter-suit thing started when MOT sued Qualcomm over a design patent for a flip phone. This also does not seem to fit too well into the category of "'technically or commercially necessary' to make and sell certain CDMA and Dual-Mode wireless products.". (Although perhaps it could be argued that a flip phone is commercially necessary?) So this begs the question of whether MOT was also suing over some additional patents which do fit into this category and would thus be a breach of the PLA and allow Qualcomm to file the latest complaint. Clark PS Note that without the full PLA, it is hard to know exactly how "technically and commercially necessary" is defined. Thus, even with the patent info it will be impossible to draw any definite conclusions - but it would be interesting info which would clarify things to some degree.