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: Asterisk who wrote (16609)	10/15/1998 11:51:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Michael: Well, thank you for the compliment. In Patent Law, you need to take advantage of the other person's typos. Furthermore, take advantage of all admissions. I appreciate you qualifying the statement by saying that "[you] believe independently that [the q] do indeed have blocking patents" With respect to your comment about my statement: Your source is the Q. I would recall that as a biased source. I think that was supposed to be taken with the study on Micro/Macro cells and maintence, etc. My apologies if I wasn't clear. With respect to your questions of power control and softhandoff, I have posted the results of soft handoff earlier. I haven't done Power Control in a CDMA system. But, since you have requested it, I will do it. Michael, I think we have a disagreement on the CDMA thing. See, the Q has patented a specific flavour of CDMA, IS-95. If they tried to patent CDMA itself, it wouldn't fly since CDMA is a subset within Spread Spectrum. Spread Spectrum has been known about since the 1940's, it was patented actually. Unless you have some technical knowledge how can you evaluate the importance of specific patents? I have asked the thread to post a specific US Patent Number. As I said before, please do not go to patents.ibm.com and pull up a Q patent. Let's face it, the Q has over 300 patents. As I said earlier, there may be doubts as to whether the Q's earlier patents are enabling for wideband CDMA. With respect to your example and court case (BTW do you know the court case, or could give me the URL?), we all know that MOT has a patent on some vibrating technology. (That, for a fact, is what I know). Let's assume that they disclose it within a pager. This patent (most likely) was granted in the early 80's. Anyways, currently, it is wel l known within the art to combine cellular phones and pagers (For evidence, I have an Ericsson phone with pager, purchased Feb 1998). Now, MOT tried to get coverage on a vibrating phone. They didn't b/c (most likely) it was determined that their teaching was not enabling for a phone. Remember, the MOT patent probably didn't mention a phone, therefore it was phone indepedent. (Do you know what Patent No this MOT pager reference was? Anything would be helpfull, even a URL) Make sense? Now, think about the Q. I hope we can talk about this more when I am in better shape. take care and you made some pretty good arguments. dave