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 (15653)	9/28/1998 7:08:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave: Please do not speak for me or attempt to characterize my firm's efforts. I did not get "one" opinion. My firm paid for a detailed patent study conducted by a Washington-based law firm with an international IPR practice. The same type of outside firm, mind you, that your typical international telecom company would use to evaluate the validity and enforceability of intellectual property rights worldwide. You claim to be expert in patent enforcement yet you seem to misunderstand the nature and breadth of the QC IPR related to W-CDMA. The terms "rake receiver", "power control" and "soft handoff" broadly represent a multitude of technological innovations that are protected by several hundred patents in toto. Part of the difficulty in assessing QC's patent strength derives from the breadth of IPR and the technological abstraction of the underlying concepts. However, since my firm has an investment exceeding $160mm in QC's equity, we felt that a six-figure IPR review fee was justifiable. Were we given a legal opinion that EVERY patent would stand in all jurisdications? Of course not. However, we are very comfortable that such a preponderance of the core aspects of ERICY's W-CDMA involve QC IPR that it will be virtually impossible for QC's patents to be circumvented. As a law student, I am certain you understand the risks of litigation...that is why a single patent...despite all legal and technical correctness...can prove to be a risky asset. As such, no competent law firm would ever render an absolute judgment on the validity of a single piece of IPR. But QC's overall patent position is such that, in a worse case scenario, the company could tie the deployment of W-CDMA up in court for years...while continuing to sell its IS-95 and wideband cdmaOne solutions unencumbered. As I have pointed out before, we have yet to see ERICY, or any of its W-CDMA cohorts, attempt to sell ANY W-CDMA solution ANYWHERE in the world. All the programs to date have been carefully described as "projects" and "trials". As an IPR expert, don't you find it interesting that ERICY et al have retreated beneath this safe harbor? Do you understand the point? For the nth time, if ERICY et al could simply circumvent QC's IPR, then there would be no debate, no litigation, no fuss and no muss. W-CDMA would be tracking against a firm deployment schedule and this debate would be moot. Gregg

To: Dave who wrote (15653)	9/28/1998 7:12:00 PM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave: Are you saying that because you have applied for/ received a/ prosecuted etc a patent that you are more qualified to judge whether ERICY needs or Europe will respect Qualcomm IPR? If so, I don't see the link. mmeggs

To: Dave who wrote (15653)	9/28/1998 7:39:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave, 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? You may know something I don't, or one of us is confused about W-CDMA vs. CDMA2000. CDMA2000 is an effort that Qcom is fully behind. I am not aware that Qcom would want to slow licensees to jump on the CDMA 2000 by requiring a separate license. Qcom denied the use of their IPR for W-CDMA which was deliberately design to be incompatible with CDMAOne. Why do you think should Qcom let Ericy to use Qcom IPR free of charge for the sole purpose of destroying Qcom. You know the one about capitalist selling the rope.... Ericy is asking Qcom to give the rope away for free. Joe