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: Clarksterh who wrote (57650)	12/12/2006 9:19:14 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196498

Much of what is 'essential' is arbitrary and political. I fully understand that. I don't like any more than you or anyone else might, but it is a fact of life with which Q has to deal. Should that be accorded as much weight as something which HAD to be used. Well, the problem is that if certain aspects of IPR are essential, then even the humdrum is required and has to be used as much as the truly innovative. Some time ago I suggested a disctinction be made between "foundational" and "essential" IPR, which I think is what you're talking about. Such a distinction would give more value to Q's patents. Unfortunately, I don't see that such a distinction has been made and accepted by the SSOs. There is clearly a pressing need for the high-value patents to be treated differently. How this will be accomplished short of endless litigation is the question facing the high tech sector.