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 (15667)	9/29/1998 12:31:00 AM
From: Quincy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"I am the best qualified person on the job right now" Oh boy. You know, my Qcom phone has an ASIC made by IBM that has Copyright notices from both Qualcomm and Intel. Are we seeing the wireless world flocking to their fab line just to avoid paying royalties? Is there a chance the person who left the Crawford trap door in the IBM contract just might not be working for Intel anymore? I am not familiar with the Crawford patent. But, as one who is involved with design on a daily basis, I can tell you we strive to avoid infringing on all patented ideas and pursue licenses on the ones we cannot design around (in time to make our market window.) Has that pursuit been successfull 100% of the time? Well, no. Actually, it makes life interesting up until the time the project risks being cancelled. "I firmly believe in patents and believe that a company should get what its worth on the market place. I have been just stating that just b/c one gets a patent doesn't mean an entirely different entity can't." It appears that more than 60 companies have reached a mutual agreement of what Qualcomm's patents are worth. But, I interpret your second sentence: an "entity" can claim a duplicate patent (just change the bandwidth and the color.) Doesn't that amount to theft, inadvertent that it may be? To help you understand where I am coming from, here is a scenario: someone comes up with a set of design features that revolutionizes brake design for automobiles. Someone else needs it to save lives around locomotives. They change its size and color, makes it air-powered instead of hydraulic, and uses it on locomotives without licensing it (to benefit humanity.) Will the courts buy it? Since the pharmacutical industry has not collapsed, I doubt it. The patent system should prevent me from shopping for a design solution in a patent database, change its color(whatever) or apply it to something with more wheels without licensing that patent. To be able to use it, re-patent it and claim it as my own appears to refute the purpose of patents in the first place. Why isn't this exactly what ETSI knows it cannot do despite Ericsson's hopes and claims to the contrary? I don't understand how you can assert bandwidth or frequency can limit the scope. Why use mind-numbingly lame arguments over electrical parameters or multiple applications to win duplicate patents? Is Ericy deliberately trying to blow their 1600+ patent portfolio just to avoid licensing a few CDMA patents from Qualcomm? This will be the consequences of your arguments as I understand them.

To: Dave who wrote (15667)	9/29/1998 10:00:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

dave: <<Most patent firms in the country offer validity opinions>> In my experience, a law firm is only as good as the partner/partners assigned to the case. That being said, I wouldn't use Skadden Arps, our truly outstanding SEC firm, for an IPR analysis because there are practices with broader technical capabilities. In a similar vein, all patent firms are NOT equal; most all of them will opine on validity, but the confidence level in, and cost of, the effort varies widely. <<The opinion you bought meant something for the present, but not the future. References can come up and it is possible that those patents may be undergoing what is called a "re-exam." Do you know what that means?>> I have never held myself out as a patent attorney, so I would not represent knowledge that I do not possess. You have concluded inaccurately, however, that we commissioned a patent study and then discharged the law firm. Such is not the case as QC's patent portfolio is in differing stages of maturity throughout the world. While I leave the technical nuances to our patent counsel, I receive monthly updates that specifically identify any new IPR or challenges to existing IPR. <<Check Class 455, I think it is sub 430+. Those subclasses deal with "soft handoff", see there isn't just one, or two, patents in there only assigned to the Q. There are also classes on "power control" As for "Rake Receiver", I have never heard of the term, but will look for it in the morning.>> While I am surprised that you are not familiar with rake receivers, I believe you missed my point. To fall back on an automotive metaphor, let's say that "rake receiver" is a broad concept roughly equivalent to a car engine. A modern car engine obviously includes many internal and external systems ranging from variable valve timing to fuel injection and so forth. Following the metaphor, I am arguing that QC's patent portfolio includes IPR for the basic architecture of "internal combustion" and additionally encompasses a myriad of subsystems that are all integral to the overall system. Your focus a point patent, i.e. rake receiver, substantially understates the IPR position. No offense, but I have worked with too many law firms and lawyers to believe that any such debate with you is winnable. Lawyers, good and bad, are masters of semantic wordplay. You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. I would note, however, that my firm has been Qualcomm's largest shareholder for many years (this is public record). While you could argue that this gives me sufficient agenda to disseminate hype and falsehood, I hope you do not believe me to be so naive as to think that a little touting on the Silicon Investor obviates my need for accurate due diligence on an investment exceeding $160mm. Gregg