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: JGoren who wrote (11561)	6/17/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

JGoren: RE: "I fail to see how MOT can show damages because the two products do not really compete with each other--one being CDMA and the other analog. They compete with other, more traditionally designed phones within their platforms. If MOT had had a CDMA StarTac phone in the market at the time, it might have lost some sales." So, what you are saying is that if someone comes up for a different use for your patent, you don't have to pay royalties to that entity? Just b/c MOT lost the temporary injunction doesn't necessarily mean that MOT lost the case. Intel didn't get a temporary injunction against Intergraph. Does that mean Intel will lose in that case? Give me a break. If you knew anything about Patent Law, you would look at the claims, and read the claims in view of the Q Phone. I haven't even seen the mechanical design patent(s) covering the StarTac. Have you? dave

To: JGoren who wrote (11561)	6/19/1998 3:27:00 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 152472

From Dave to JGoren, I notice in your profile that your email address is: APPEALNOW. Are you an attorney? If so, do you specialize in IP Law? IP Law is a highly specialized form of law and only people with technical degrees may prosecute cases before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (If any questions, uspto.gov )In order to prosecute a case as an attorney, you must pass the bar and, furthermore, pass the Patent Bar given by the Office. Here is a little lesson in Patent Law. I did a little research and came up with U.S. Patent No. 5,742,894, hereinafter "the reference" The reference was issued to Motorola on April 21, 1998 and was filed on April 13, 1995. Under U.S. Law, all patents are presumed to be valid. The reference in Col. 5, lines 5-11 discloses "..the moveable housing element 109 is a flip. It is anticipated that other equally sufficient embodiemnts of a moveable housing element 109 may be substitute therefor. These other embodiments include: a clam shell housing , a swivel type housing and a sliding type housing.." (Emphasis Added) Now, that is from the specification, and one is to read the claims (which is the actual invention) in view of the Specification. Now let's go to Claim 1 of the reference in col. 6, lines 4-9 which reads "..a moveable housing elements having a first surface and a secodn surface, said moveable housing element rotatably coupled to the bottom end of said body housing element and moveable between an open position and a closed position.." (Emphasis added) As stated previously, this housing could be a clam shell, a swivel or a sliding type... So, any questions? dave >>>> From JGoren to Dave, Thanks for your email on the MOT clamshell. I am an attorney specializing in appellate law (appeals of trial court cases), but I'm no IP specialist. What I am about to say is fairly general and basic IP law--and certainly not the definitive word. There are some patent claims in the Complaint, as I recall, but I do not recall what you mention being there--at least it was not mentioned in any of the press releases as best I remember. My recollection of the patent claims is that they were more technological than design in nature. I have not taken the time to look back, however, to the releases of last falll. I would think that a swivel mechanism can be designed and manufactured in many ways--without infringement. The suit is primarily over "trade dress", which is how something looks, and the looks must be so similar that it is confusing to the customer. I don't think that anyone who sees a StarTac and a Q close up can confuse the two units. That's what the trial judge meant by "distinctiveness" in his opinion of the temporary injunction. In addtion, there are, as I am sure you know, some things that simply cannot be patented, and a clamshell design may be one of them. I would suggest that you post the information in your email on SI, and see what comment others have. I was simply surprised that the issue of the MOT suit over the Q was being rasied again after such a long time when that issue has been silent since shortly after the ruiling on the temporary injunction. I don't remember when is the suit set for trial? One suit against QCOM is set for trial in the fall in East Texas, but I don't remember which one. I believe it was not the MOT case, which is to be heard in San Diego federal court, if I remember correctly. It's probably the Ericy suit--because Ericy has installations in Dallas and the East Texas area... >>>>> From Dave to JGoren, Thanks for your reply, you can post my message to the board since I am at work and not allowed to post while there. I am not sure whether that MOT patent is part of the suit. I just did a quick search to find a MOT patent which discloses a "clam shell" device... From Dave to JGoren Could you also post your response, too? I am going out of town for the weekend, but will post a public response. Thanks again, dave _