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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: xihubber who wrote (48485)	11/6/2005 12:01:28 PM
From: jackmore	Respond to of 197413

Re: Essential or Not, and no in between. What's missing in the definition is any recognition of relative value. The definition doesn't distinguish between essential elements that "can't be done any other way" and those that could be done a number of ways but are being done in the "agreed upon way". I suggest Q's patents deal more with the former, and the guild's patents deal more with the latter. The market for IP has made that distinction, and has assigned value accordingly.

To: xihubber who wrote (48485)	11/6/2005 1:09:46 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197413

FUD? What happened to Mr Pedant with words meaning what they mean, no ifs buts maybes or apostrophe's? Do you know what fud means? It means fear, uncertainty, and doubt being propagandized by an opponent, for example the Hagfish Guild in regard to whether CDMA would actually work and whether QCOM owned the technology. You are also determined to be obtuse over my explanation of why various patents could be "essential" but some much more valuable than others. I might have to re-read Ramsey's rules about who should be debated in this sacred stream where pollution is not allowed. Mqurice

To: xihubber who wrote (48485)	11/6/2005 1:17:28 PM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 197413

one is either essential or not, there is no between Technology Patent Licensing: An International Reference on 21st Century Patent Licensing, Patent Pools and Patent Platforms Chapter 3: “The Determination of Essentiality” Introduction Organization of this chapter Requirements of the Evaluation Process The Evaluator: Evaluation Service Provider (“ESP”) 1) The Generic Problem 2) The Specific Problem The Evaluation Procedure and Structure Issues Reviewed and Decided Table 3.1 Some fundamental issues for resolution in defining an Evaluation Process Issue 1: Aggregation of Claims Issue 2: Translation Issue 3: Patent Families Issue 4: Number of Claims Per Application Issue 5: Confidentiality Issue 6: Publication of Results Issue 7: Doctrine of Equivalents Issue 8: Who May Be an Evaluator? Issue 9: Composition of the Evaluation Panel Issue 10: How are Specific Evaluators Chosen for an Evaluation Panel? Issue 11: Intervention by Experts Issue 12: Third Party Interventions Issue 13: Third Party Applications for Evaluation Issue 14: Optional and Mandatory Standards Issue 15: Re-evaluations Issue 16: Status of a Certified Patent with a New Standards Release The 3G Patent Platform Evaluation Process Key Policy Aspects of the Evaluation Process (Part 3) 1) Definition of “Essential” 2) The Patent Evaluation Process 3) Confidentiality of the Patent Application 4) Publication 5) Declaration of Essentiality 6) IPEC Output Documentation 7) Choice of Patent Law Firms 8) The Evaluators Guidelines and Rules for Making an Application (Part 2) Differences in National Laws The Application Form (Part 1) Conclusions Footnotes Figures 3.1) Deliverables from the Evaluation Process; 3.2) Structure of the International Patent Evaluation Consortium; 3.3) Evaluation Procedure; 3.4) Evaluation Structure. 3gpatents.com