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: 2brasil who wrote (13579)	8/11/1998 10:15:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

From the road.. I'm traveling again, so I will be brief. Limtex: QCOM's patents are quite broad and cover little details (as I have mentioned before) like the basic waveform...so ERICY is NOT going to going to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat and circumvent the IPR. Now, let's address the patent litigation. First you have to understand the importance of ERICY's IPR claims relative to IS-95 (answer: peripheral at best) and their likelihood of prevailing (answer: very low according to our patent counsel(s))...let me expand on that for a moment...QC has licensed its IPR to over fifty companies (other than ERICY). Each has done their own due diligence on the IPR and NONE, let me repeat that, NONE has required Qualcomm to indemnify them against prospective patent infringement claims. Let me be absolutely crystal clear, when Lucent, Hughes, Phillips, Motorola, Northern Telecom, Nokia, LSI, DSP, Samsung, LG Electronics (and so on and so on) licensed QC's IPR, they would have conducted their own patent reviews first (so that they would not be committed to paying QC royalties while infringing somebody else's IPR). If any of these company believed that ERICY had a blocking or otherwise significant CDMA patent position, they would have required QC to indemnify them for the potential damages. None have done so (and QC has zero contingent liability in this regard). So we have far more than QC's opinion about its patent position, we have the affirmative economic and legal conclusion of fifty eight independent licensees. (BTW: Raymond, if you don't believe me, call up a few of the companies mentioned above and ask the question). That's ONE of the reasons I doubt I'll be noshing on my Nanao anytime soon. As for Japan. Limtex...the Japanese should not do our bidding. As a matter of fact, I am offended when our government officials get on their high horse and start telling sovereign states how they should run their country and/or economy. That's how people end up hating us 'mericans. We ride in and force them to adopt some wicked austerity program and the local politicians blame the West for everything subsequently that ails their society. Japan will fix itself for very selfish reasons. At some juncture the population will get sick and tired of the dismal economic performance and the political inaction. The crisis will then provide a catalyst for internal change...it may not be on a timetable that suits us perfectly, or preserves our favorite bovine (i.e. bull market), but it will happen. Large, powerful economic entities like Japan simply do not fade away. Best regards, Gregg