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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Quincy who wrote (90895)	12/29/2000 8:41:25 PM
From: Ingenious	Respond to of 152472

quincy: i do know better about patents; i believe you are having some delusions 1. You said: "To use the USPTO search engine correctly, must name all necessary components to a working phone. Not just the thingie right next to the antenna." There is no "correct" use of the USPTO search engine. Further, you need not name all necessary components to a working phone. One need only find one component in a phone that is the subject matter of a patent. Often, patents don't include every element of a product because they are improvements on only one aspect of the technology. Everthing else is not relevant. (BTW, not sure what that "thingee" is you are referring to.) 2. The scope of a patent may be broader than 1 technology but it should at least mention the technology it most closely works with. If a patent does not apply to any technology in particular (ie not even mention WCDMA or CDMA but air waves in the abstract) it is probably useless and therefore invalid. You might think that GSM patents could apply to CDMA and WCDMA but these patents probably have only tangential importance to operation of WCDMA or CDMA. These are not core technologies companies worry about since there are many options. 3. A patent focussed on a narrow and critical step in a process or in a hardware design is sometimes better than the broadest patent. Especially if the claims cover exactly what a competitor is doing or is required to perform a technology. These are hard to invalidate and ignore. 4. My keyword search was not meant to be exhaustive but illustrative of the focus on wcdma. patents directed towards a certain technology (say cdma) generally mention cdma because that is the subject matter. very few patents mention WCDMA so it appears not to be a focus in many companies. i am not saying that you are completely wrong, but you definitely don't know what you are talking about. happy new year. ig >> Quincy Wrote: Raj and Ingen, you should know better. The scope of a patent needs to be as broad as possible. To use the USPTO search engine correctly, you must name all necessary components to a working phone. Not just the thingie right next to the antenna. For example, CDMA needs power control. But, a properly written power control patent probably won't limit its scope to CDMA. Patent is still enforceable when a new modulation technique comes out that needs rake receiver IPR. WCDMA must outperform TDMA/GSM to garner customer demand and generate royalties for Qualcomm. I know that IS95, WCDMA, GSM, and IS41 are public standards just as Nokia has claimed. But, new IPR is continually needed for today's phones to outperform last year's phones. Still waiting for someone to demonstrate WCDMA that sings and dances circles around good old GSM that doesn't use IPR Q developed and patented. Knowing Qualcomm has years of CDMA experience outside of CDMAOne, I am confident there is nothing wrong with their IPR scope. Could be a moot point anyway. Licenses will be easy once Q adds GSM hardware to their WCDMA multimedia chipset plans. I see no reason to think N isn't looking over its shoulder at Asian phone manufacturers.