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: barty who wrote (143263)	7/4/2006 12:50:59 PM
From: kech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

That is rubbish - tell me how do you define what's more important between say power management and the radio in the handset. Not rubbish Pal. Ericsson tried every which way possible to get around Qualcomm's critical patents and couldn't that is why it signed. If you want to ignore that critical issue, you are really missing the picture here. Some patents can be invented around and others can't. I guess the term might be "blocking patents" as distinct from "essential patents" where essential patents are just all the patents listed on the spec. Blocking patents are those that no one, try as hard as they might, can come up with an alternative way of doing them.

To: barty who wrote (143263)	7/4/2006 1:12:39 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

its not just about radio Agreed. But That is rubbish - tell me how do you define what's more important between say power management and the radio in the handset. Without power, we're all screwed. Not rubbish. Just because there is little interdependency does not make them 'equal'. Patents are largely an economic incentive and therefore it is possible to judge them by their popularity among their peers - i.e. nobody but goofballs spend a lot of time patenting worthless stuff and the more money there is in an area the more patents. So a very good way to tell about relative importance is looking at the cite tree. Do the courts recognize this? Probably not. Do patent think tanks recognize it? Almost certainly (and therefore it will eventually make its way into the court system). Do the courts recognize common sense (e.g. that Qualcomm irked Nokia years before WCDMA and yet Nokia et al still chose it without having some way around the patents says an awful lot)? Absolutely (at least when presented according to precedent)! Clark