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: Gregg Powers who wrote (15691)	9/29/1998 7:19:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg: As we speak, the Q has a grand total of 222 US Patents. Ericy has a total of 1685 US Patents. Remember that class I brought up? Class 455, subclasses 439-444 are for handoff. The Q has a total of 8 patents. Although I didn't read too closely, US Patent Nos 5,101,501 and 5,267,261 deal with "soft handoff" and were issued in March of 92 and Nov of 93 respectively. Ericy patent no 5,613,217 issued in March of 1997 and 5,392,453 issued in Feb of 1995 looked interesting for Ericy. I have never declared myself an expert on CDMA or any type of air interface nor have I on patent licensing. With respect to the latter, I know very little about it. About CDMA, I took two classes in college on Wireless communciations and we spent some time on the subject and also a class on Digital Signal Processing. 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. That is interesting, however technology stands still for no firm. While you could argue that this gives me sufficient agenda to disseminate hype and falsehood I have never stated that you are hyping the Q, nor will I. I do believe that you have gotten an opinion. One point is that the people on this thread think that the Q has a completely unbeatable IPR and constantly cite the opinion. And your response was that 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 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. and I believe your response. By the way, did the firm also look at Ericy, NOkia, Mot, Lucent's patents? dave

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (15691)	9/30/1998 3:36:00 AM
From: Rajala	Respond to of 152472

>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. Gregg, I don't think is it possible that Q's IPR includes the basic architecture of "internal combustion", to use the analogy. Firstly, CDMA has been around long before Q started. Secondly, CDMA refers to air interface which contains no hard technology at all. It is an area which can be organized in a billion of different intelligent ways of which Q has 100+ patents. Most of them probably relating to CDMA1. Now there has been talk about some specific "soft handover" etc. excellent innovations which may or may not possess a strong claim on W-CDMA. This is quite different from "internal combustion" patent. Because W-CDMA is only one arbitrary standard solution among the myriad intelligent possibilities, in theory it could be changed in those areas where it steps on Q's toes (if it does). Problem is, getting W-CDMA spec modified would be a job and a half, not worth if things could be reasonably settled. - rajala