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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gus who wrote (3796)	2/9/2000 10:37:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

This only goes to prove how crazy it is to have juries deciding patents. My husband is a patent examiner, has been for the last ten years - his art has nothing to do with telecomm, which is good because if it was then I would be prohibited from investing in it (conflict of interest). It takes years of narrow specializing in one area of technology to become a senior examiner. I think in most cases only a patent examiner really knows the prior art well enough to know what's obvious, what infringes, and what's a valid extension of the prior art, although probably an engineer who specializes in the art will understand the technology, but not the wide ranges that make up any given art, and probably would need specialized training in the law. It's possible that a patent lawyer will know the technology well enough, but the ones I've met don't know anything outside their own engineering background, which was years ago. The engineers that become patent examiners and go to law school typically don't stay in the patent office for more than a couple of years.

To: Gus who wrote (3796)	2/9/2000 7:05:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

GUS SAID - And if you drill down at least 3 levels from any of the 5 patents covered by the IDC-QCOM cross-licensing agreeement, you will find more sophisticated spread spectrum system and component patents from various companies dating back to the sixties. W SAID- ....would equally apply to IDC would it not? GUS SAID- Exactly. Nokia is also a major proponent of the 3g Patent Platform. ==================================================================== Gus - let me post your original post again - you seem to have forgotten it. Message 12813679 provoked by Qualcommers who can not tolerate the notion that CMDA rests on the foundation of spread spectrum technology that has been around since the 1940s and 1950s -- public domain foundations, in other words -- because then that would mean that there are alternative paths that cast serious doubts about QCOM's ability to impose its royalty regime on the rest of the industry while it only has 10% of the global market. Question 1. You assert that prior art casts serious doubts on QCOM royalties. Why do you think serious doubts wouldn't equally apply to IDC? Question 2. You assert that QCOMS royalties come from 10% of the global market. Others on this thread assert that IDC gas 12% of the remaining 90%. Comparing IDC and QCOM royalty figures IDC : for the three month period ended September 30, 1999 includes $3.4 million in new licenses, $4.0 million related to development efforts for Nokia and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. ("Samsung"), and $2.9 million in recurring royalties. QCOM : revenues for the first quarter of fiscal 2000 were $178 million how do you account for the disparity?