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: Joe NYC who wrote (15652)	9/28/1998 6:39:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

All: I, like most americans, view Europe as a protectionistic society. It is ok for European companies to come to the US and takeover American companies (eg Alcatel and DSC). However, when an American company wants to take over a European company (how about Pepsi and Orangina) there are always problems. Face it, when American companies go overseas, they are no longer under American rules/regulations (except when it comes to bribing, then they are much to their competitive disadvantage :^) ). How about when the Union Carbide plant exploded and the Indians sued Union Carbide. The plant was under Indian control. The Q in Russia. Of course, they (the Q) got their man back, but he was arrrested. The American marketplace is a true free market economy, where the consumer votes with his/her wallet. The problem I have with all your arguments are two things . One, we cannot seem to settle this IPR issue. Two, you seem to believe just b/c one gets a patent that no-one else can. Do you know what the US PTO's corporate motto/strategy is? It is: To Help our Customers Get Patents. The US PTO, like the European Patent Office, wants to issue patents. When an application issues to a patent, the respective patent office charges something called a maintenance fee over the life of the patent. These fees are quite more than the original examination fee. Remember guys, it is the Patent Office, not the rejection office. With respect to IPR, the first comment is: Why is it if someone gets a license for IS-95, they can't use the patents for CDMA2000? The Q says that the patents do not limit the bandwidth, therefore the same patents covering IS-95 cover CDMA2000. Does that sound fair to their customers? Interesting, huh? We seem to disagree whether it be best for the Q to license, or stand firm. In marketshare perspective, when you compare CDMA(IS-95) to TDMA/GSM, for marketshare TDMA/GSM >> (is much greater than) CDMA(IS-95). Now the Europeans decided to use CDMA and the Q is crying foul..... Next, you cite Gregg Power's study as fact from God. If he did get an opinion, that is all it is. I can give you an opinion, too. That is: The Q's US Patents are valid until otherwise proven in US Court. Don't bank on a victory, b/c nothing is certain. All Gregg got you was one opinion. That is similiar to taking a presidential poll and only getting an answer of 1 person, or a sample size of one. Remember, in court, a patent just doesn't have to be invalidated b/c its scope is too broad. It has to meet Statutory requirements (35 USC 101) and Written Description Requirements (35 USC 112) and ofcourse art requirements (35 USC 102/103). In conclusion, remember what I say b/c this could come back to haunt you. We, as a Nation/Government, aren't as protectionistic as the Europeans or Asians. Just b/c someone gets a patent doesn't mean another entity can't get one either of similiar scope and breadth. personally, I have gotten sick and tired of our banter. I would say most are speaking from the side of ignorance having never applied for/received a/prosecuted a/prepared a patent. I have. dave