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: Maurice Winn who wrote (11486)	6/15/1998 10:18:00 AM
From: CDMQ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

All: re: the testimony of John Major as posted above Clearly, as has been stated, if ERICY could easily by pass Q's patents and IPR there would be no discussion. It seems, on the other side of this argument, if the Q felt so confident we would not need protection from the FCC. I got the impression that Q's strength lies more to the side of IPR than patents. Isn't IPR more likely to be by-passed than patents which have more international support? I believe Q will eventually be successful at some level but these guys at ERICY are not sitting around like bumps on a pickle either. They must be getting advice from their legal department that it is in there long term best interest to delay, befuddle and confabulate while they steal our IPR. This could delay a successful bottom line for a good long time. On the other hand if ERICY caves in, virtually at any level and buys a license, we are looking at the volcanic rise in the Q we are all hoping for. Here's hoping! Ouch $47 and change as we speak! Hangin' in there, Terry