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: Maurice Winn who wrote (16394)	10/13/1998 5:06:00 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 152472

Very Long Post Maurice: To be honest, I don't know how much it would cost either side of a patent lawsuit. My conservative estimate would be tens of millions of dollars on each side. Next, everyone is mentioning the term "Rake Receiver", so I did a patent search. The term "Rake Receiver" is found in 144 US Patents. Out of those 144 US Patents, 15 are granted to the Q, 19 are granted to Ericy, and 10 are granted to Nokia. Sorry, no further breakdown, and I also didn't look at the context of the patents. I hate trying to put a dollar number on a patent suit. What would be that number if the Q's patents were held invalid? When writing an application, the attorney (or inventor if a pro se) drafts a specification detailing the prior art (the technology that is known) and how this application differentiates from the prior art. Of course, the differentiation is an opinion of the applicant's. After the specification is drawn up, within the application are the claims. The claims determine how broad/narrow the coverage should be. The claims also should be interpretted in view of the specification. Before a patent is granted at the US PTO, it goes through a prosecution phase before a Patent Examiner. The examiner searches the prior art (meaning the technology) and writes an action to the applicant's attorneys. The attorney responds and either argues with the examiner over the claimed invention's scope, or amends the claims narrowing the invention. Does this make sense so far? Now, before a patent is issued the examiner gives the patent application's claims the broadest reasonable construction. For example, if you claim a transducer (which, by definition is a system which converts one form of energy into another) and I show a microphone (which is a system which converts a pressure wave into an electrical signal), you are going to have to amend your claims and be alot more specific. Are you with me? Sometimes, however, one reference doesn't teach all the limitations within the claim. (Please interpret a limitation as a detail) Let me save and I will go on. dave

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (16394)	10/13/1998 5:33:00 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 152472

Very Long Post- Part II When an examiner has to combine references, the examiner has to find a reason (or motivation) to combine. That is quite the doubled edged sword, b/c it prevents an entity from receiving a patent by making an obvious modification. However, it also prevents you from making an obvious modification to another person's patents. That is the basics of Prosecution before the office. When someone mentions just plain and simple terms, my opinion is that someone else can figure out another implementation and get a patent. To be honest, I haven't read one of the patents in dispute. If you, or someone else, can point me to one of the actual patents in dispute, I will take a look at it. Please, don't go to patents.ibm.com and type in the Q and give me a number. If it has been disclosed, tell me. What the Q and the ETSI/Ericy et al. are arguing over is the scope of their patents. Remember when I spoke about the broadest reasonable construction of the claims? Well, the courts analyze the narrowest construction of the claims. Although, I haven't read one of the disputed Q patents, my assumption is that the Q discloses these patents in a narrowband environment. The Q has stated that the patents are covered in a Wideband environment. The ETSI/ERicy et al. dispute saying that an artisan couldn't implement this wideband environment at the time the invention was made and, therefore, the Q has coverage only for narrowband applications. Now, for the Q's benefit, as time went out and as the filed newer and newer appications, I would assume that the Q discloses both narrow and widebandwidth. Now to respond to your arguments... :^) Now, since L M Ericsson has said that the IPR should be free, and it is unlikely that they would get a clean sweep across all patent I wholeheartedly agree. The chances are slim that Ericy gets a cleam sweep, I would say that the chances are a little better that the Q gets a clean sweep, but let's just say those are not better odds. My guess, Ericy gets a clean sweep (about 1%), Q gets a clean sweep (about 3-4%) L M Ericsson has said that the IPR should be free I remember a Japanese company stating that if the Q gave them the IPR they would use it, but I don't recall Ericy. If they said that, they are out to lunch and need to "put their money where their mouth is." However, to add, the Q is unwilling to license to any company as long as the ETSI doesn't include CDMA2000 in the W-CDMA standard. Now, this is my opinion(and my opinion only), if the ETSI is willing to include CDMA2000 in the standard, then the Q should reduce the royalty rate its willing to accept. I don't think it would take that big a deal of lawyering I disagree. It will take quite a big deal of lawyering since the "stakes" are high. Like Gregg who got a validity opinion, my bet is that the Q has gotten a validity opinion. The ETSI (I will grant them expert status in the telephony art) took a look at the Q's patents and said they might be usefull in implementing the standard. And, most likely, Ericy has gotten an opinion. Everyone has gotten opinions and, most likely, I bet they all are quite different b/c of the human factor. dave