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: Dave who wrote (14197)	8/27/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave - As I have been saying on this board and on the nokia thread, just b/c someone gets a patent doesn't mean that another party can't use it. The other party could patent a different implementation. I agree except that Qualcomm has been in the field by themselves so long that the probably have most of the best 'implementations' patented. The question is whether they have missed any. That is not easy to know, and that was my point. Clark PS BTW your phraseology is a little off - 'just because someone gets a patent doesn't mean another party can't use it' is manifestly false. I'll agree that another party can use the same idea, but they cannot use the same implementation, and there is no clear cut definition of the boundary between the two. If, in a patented filter, you change one capacitor is that a new implemetation or not? Unless there is an unobvious extension to the patent, or it uses completely different technology (e.g. equivalent filters in harware and software would sometimes be considered different implementations, but not in all courts.) the courts tend to assume that it is the same implementation, and therefore infringing, if they two devices share any more than the pointed to 'idea'.