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 (16615)	10/16/1998 1:08:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave, With all due respect (which is shrinking daily), your comments show a complete lack of knowledge. First of all, MOTs patent for a vibrating pager is just that, for vibrating alert on a PAGER. There is no innovation in making something vibrate so of course the Patent Court would interpret that very narrowly. Secondly, I don't think anyone on this thread has claimed or even thinks that QCOM has a patent on CDMA. Qualcomms innovations are specific proprietary techniques that enable mobile CDMA of any bandwidth to function. Show me one company that has demonstrated mobile CDMA without using two or three of Qualcomms proprietary patented techniques. There aren't any, if there was they would be offering their IPR to the world for a price. Thirdly, you say again and again, "As I said earlier, there may be doubts as to whether the Q's earlier patents are enabling for wideband CDMA." Can you state that a little more weakly please? Doubts schmouts. Do you think Qualcomms patent attorneys were stupid? They didn't limit QCOMs patents to a certain bandwidth, they didn't need to. If another company wishes to use QCOMs patented techniques, they need to license them regardless of the bandwidth. If they didn't, they wouldn't be complaining about the "unfair" licensing fee. What could be more obvious? C'mon Dave, admit that you have an agenda other than the charitable warning to investors that QCOMs patents are not "proven" to apply to wideband CDMA. You certainly have taken us under your wing. You have a lot of time to devote to us misguided investors don't you? I can't imagine you don't have something more interesting to do than rehash the same tired opinions over and over. I'm here because I have invested in QCOM at 39, 43, 47, 53 and 62 and have a vested interest in a company that I have observed to be honest, reputable and forthright which is much more than I can say about QCOM's detractors. Why are you really here? Short interest? Interest in a competitor? Paid to plant the seeds of doubt? Your inability to see the fallacy of your arguments show that you are either less than intelligent or one of the above. Of course I don't expect you to admit to either.

To: Dave who wrote (16615)	10/16/1998 3:12:00 AM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

look at patent 5,554,971 I believe that is the patent that is in question. Look at the patents that QCOM holds. Many have absolutely no mention of IS-95 or the bandwidth that is associated with their application. Just wondering but how do you come to the conclusion that their patents apply only to IS-95 Check these patents out and tell me that with this coverage you can do at least power control in a CDMA system without violating them. #'s 5,655,220 5,640,414 5,602,833 5,590,408 5,485,486 5,265,119 5,101,501 5,056,109