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 (15668)	9/29/1998 12:25:00 AM
From: marginmike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave the other point you keep ovelooking is that circumventing patents by re-engineering technology is not that easy. I agree that patents are far from bulletproof. However It will cost a lot more (IMHO) to do so then to liscence the technology. When ERICY decides to rework technology, it will cost money and take time. In that same time CDMA2000 will be rolled out. The other two points that make this argument silly is that the US government will get involved. This is not just a patent issue, but a trade issue. Qualcomm has way to much clout in Washington to be pushed aside. It is clear on a factual basis that Qualcomm developed this technology, if they are denied their rights the US government will respond. They have already hinted at this to push a compromise. The last and most important point is the fact that ETSI has already stated, and asked Qualcomm for use of their IPR's Though you dangle your wit, and sarcasm, as well as your patent office experience you do not answer the question. It seems to me that you are more interested in touting your expertise then adressing that point. I would also add that, though you have been quite informative in this area, you are not a Patent lawyer, nor have you investigated these patents in depth. As Greg has done this(I have also had a patent attourney investigate) he is in a better position to make a judgment. We also know who he is, and can look into his credibility. On the other hand you refuse to reveal your identity? I would be more inclined to trust Gregg's opinion. He also has alot more to lose if hes wrong!

To: Dave who wrote (15668)	9/29/1998 9:12:00 AM
From: bananawind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave, Your condescending tone is getting tiresome. Why not give it a rest? This is free advice... and worth every penny it cost. -JLF

To: Dave who wrote (15668)	9/29/1998 1:40:00 PM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

You're making a pretty bold statement when you say that most on the thread can "barely identify the acronym CDMA." Your cliam to be the "best person on the job" rings a little hollow when you admit you don't know what a rake receiver is. I don't claim any technical knowledge - my last good grade in math was in geometry in the 9th grade. I also have never "aplied for/ received a/ prosecuted a" patent. Since you're not an attorney, you claim to have "prosecuted" is interesting, since generally speaking, those who have not passed the bar cannot make argument in court. I am able however, to observe several undisputed facts: 1. There is a lot of pressure being brought to bear on Q to give up its supposedly unneccessary patents. 2. ERICY has publicly offered to trade patents with Q, patents that they supposedly don't need. 3. No one has contended, other than an unsubstantiated blurb, that Q needs anyone else's IPR to proceed with cdma2000. (At least any that is not already licensed to Q) 4. cdma2000 and w-cdma are basically identical. (from the recent anouncement by the CDMA developmetn group.) 5. ETSI has publicly acknowledged that Q has "strong" IPR for W-CDMA. I don't need to be a patent lawyer to put that all together. The conclusion is inescapable, no matter how hard you all try to avoid it. mmeggs