SI
SI
discoversearch

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: samim anbarcioglu who wrote (143290)7/4/2006 4:58:43 PM
From: scratchmyback  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 152472
 
<<Normally, you would start the clock for a 16 year count at that time, according to patent laws, but the company was actually unable to receive any benefit of their patents due to litigation against it.>>

Do you have any information on Qualcomm's litigations in early 1990's? I'd never heard of them, do you mean someone actually litigated QCOM for their early CDMA patents already before Ericsson & Co?



To: samim anbarcioglu who wrote (143290)7/5/2006 5:21:35 PM
From: scratchmyback  Respond to of 152472
 
<<These and related patents were actually granted in the early 1990s. Normally, you would start the clock for a 16 year count at that time, according to patent laws, but the company was actually unable to receive any benefit of their patents due to litigation against it. So, it is said that in cases such as that, the clock actually is reset when the company is able to reap benefit.>>

Samim, the Ericsson case started only in 1996 and Eric L. mentioned some InterDigital and Motorola cases, but those were settled by negotiating. So do you actually believe that the 16 year expiration clock didn't start ticking in early 1990's because of a litigation which started only in 1996? And if that is the case, when did the clock start?

Sorry if these are stupid questions, but besides not being a patent engineer, I'm also completely lost in legal stuff...