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: Ilaine who wrote (4017)	2/19/2000 7:03:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

On a more constructive note, CobaltBlue, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this opinion of the current state of Markman: ...For all of that, it appears that Cybor will remain the controlling case law for U.S. patent litigation. What it necessarily means is patent owners will have to remain uncertain as to the certain meaning of their patent claims until the Federal Circuit has completed its de novo review which will, in turn, be decided free from any deference or regard to whatever claim interpretation may have been applied at the trial court level. The Full Markman - Naked and Revealed pillsburylaw.com Also, the same essay also contains some interesting statistics regarding patent litigation: Judge Rader's dissent presents some interesting statistics. Of a total of 246 patent cases, originating in the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), the district courts, and the Court of Federal Claims, 141 cases expressly reviewed claim construction issues. Of these 141 decisions, the Federal Circuit reversed, in whole or in part, 54 or 38.3% of the claim construction determinations by the lower tribunals. Further, with respect to cases from trial courts, the rate of reversal of claim constructions is 47 out of 126 or 37.3%. For the non-lawyers like me, below is an explanation of the De novo review, one of the 3 common standards of appeal: ragingbull.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (4017)	2/21/2000 10:03:00 PM
From: Kayaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

>>this is a misguided effort and will self-destruct due to it's unfair treatment of those who have done the most to further the technology<< You're kidding, right? I don't think he's kidding. Here is QCOM's position on pooling patents (from the Feb 17th conference call). W-CDMA won't happen without QCOM and QCOM won't be pooling their patents. Many industry groups and companies have actually come to us and asked us to join -- I actually received a number of questions about this yesterday -- what they call a "patent pool". And the concept there was, "Hey, let's take everybody's patents, through them into a pool, agree to charge a maximum royalty, and then we'll share that in some predetermined fashion." And of course, everybody that doesn't have essential patents wants to join that pool so that they can gain access to the companies with the strong patent positions. We've had no interest in joining that patent pool and we'll continue with our existing bilateral license negotiations. Also from the same conference call... There's been, I guess recently, some questions about our position on the 3G CDMA standard, specifically what's referred to as DS, previously known as W-CDMA. We have informed the standards bodies that we have more than 100 patents that are essential to W-CDMA. And, what is meant by "essential" is that based on how these specifications are written, one cannot design a product that complies with that standard without necessarily infringing our patents, which means that companies will necessarily have to sign license agreements in order to deploy products based on that standard. Message 12931020