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: Eric L who wrote (143349)	7/5/2006 3:10:13 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

EL - what chance is there that the Q wins all of these cases around the globe? Lose one and it seems there is a major problem. Now we are seeing several posts questioning the standing of Qs patents. We used to think that Q had the key enforceable patents that seems to be unravelling fast. How did things turn around like this from six weeks ago? Best, L

To: Eric L who wrote (143349)	7/5/2006 4:03:46 PM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 152472

Some 40 companies have declared patents 'essential' to the 3GPP UMTS (WCDMA) technology standard. ... and of the 6872 3GPP declared essential patents at the time of the (Nokia-sponsored) Goodman and Myers study, 372 of the declared 732 patent families were shared by CDMA2000. Strangely enough 3GPP2 sees the same 372. (p.7) dawn.cs.umbc.edu ... and so on. But in the absence of a hierarchy, why ever talk about the number of essential patents? [Whose idea was that?] The task at hand is to figure the value of each patent, perhaps within a hierarchy of families, and the courts will test that in an assessment of whether Qualcomm's royalty% is excessive, compared to a 5% valuation of a pool of all the others. Then, except for semantics, somebody might say "more essential" and we'll know exactly what he means --- more fundamental, more pioneering, more important, more valuable.

To: Eric L who wrote (143349)	7/5/2006 4:35:55 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

The concept of 'more essential' or "most" essential does not exist. As a fully accepted standard within case law, you are correct. (and neither does FRAND) But that doesn't mean you cann't morph 'more essential' vs 'less essential' into spaces that case law does recognize - e.g. Nokia is on record (via Bill Gates) that CDMA wouldn't provide any benefit implying a high degree of originality to the original patents (and that type of definition of originality is part of case law - although I've long since forgotten which cases.) Clark