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 : Loral Space & Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Valueman who wrote (2219)	3/13/1998 2:51:00 AM
From: brian h	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10852

Valueman, About 2nd generation of Globalstar LLP petition before FCC, see the following link. I think this is the latest petition, though no mention if it is a 2nd generation or not. fcc.gov An old petition in 1994-95 fcc.gov Brian H.

To: Valueman who wrote (2219)	3/14/1998 1:54:00 AM
From: Mr. Adrenaline	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10852

Pardon the slightly off topic discussion. There was a question about patents that I just couldn't resist putting my two cents in on. As it was explained to me, a patent is (this is my memory version of what a patent lawyer told me) "A contract with the public for full disclosure of an invention for the sole right to develop that invention" So if you file a patent, you must fully disclose the details "so that one learned in the art of the invention" would understand the invention and be able to develop it. In turn you got sole rights to use it, and if anyone else wants to use it, they gotta pay you money. Conversely, if you say, develop the cure for the common cold and you are confident no one else will figure out how to develop a cure, there is nothing saying you have to patent it, and you get to run a monopoly. Patents are written as broadly possible. For example, let's suppose that I want to patent a hard rive for a PC. I might disclose to a patent attorney that I invented a device that would store data on a magnetic media that spins at high RPM and has a pick up device that records and reads electronic data. A good patent attorney, would in turn write the patent saying something like "device for storing data" Very broadly written, so that, technically, if later someone comes up with a hard drive that relies on organic coding of molecules as opposed to the dipole of a magnetic field, well, you could sue them for infringement. This of course is an exaggerated case, but I exaggerate to emphasize a point. Now, lets look at the flip side. Let's say that I have a patent on the Internet that reads something like "inter-network computer system that facilities data transmission world wide". People use the Internet for years to send e-mail and transmit files. Then, along comes the World Wide Web, with graphics and multi-media. I want to sue the inventor of the WWW because they are transmitting data over a networked computer system without paying me a licensing fee. But the WWW inventor makes a claim that I never envisioned the Internet to be used for graphics, and with the right lawyer and judge, he may be successful in his argument. This is the enigma that are patents. The problem is actually more complex than just one of how to interpret what are known as "the claims" of a patent because the people who write patents and litigate patents are not technical people. So if a patent is technical, those "claims" are usually lost on a judge who may hear a case. So, I again apologize for the off subject rant, but a company may well believe that it has it's intellectual property protected, and later find out it is in for a huge surprise. Mr. A