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: Bux who wrote (16619)	10/16/1998 3:12:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

*OT* Bux, our venerable friend, marginmike asked Clone3 what his angle was etc. No3 refused to answer, saying he wished to educate the masses. I'm always offended about references to 'masses' as it suggests an attitude which I dislike. Sure it can be innocent enough but it was the patronising 'educating the masses' approach. Dave has been on SI since Oct 1995, which means he even beat me and Ramsey to here [and a few others]. So he knows he is not dealing with bumbling masses here. When he reads the posts he should be aware of that. So we can dismiss that as a lie, self-delusion or silly comment. Marginmike's question sought the benefits to Clone3 of being here, not a comment that he was educating the masses. Here's Clone3's personal detail: Dave Member Since Oct 09, 1995 Occupation\Title Intellectual Property Location Northern Virginia College Virginia Tech Degree B.S. Electrical Engineering; J.D. expected 2002 Favorite Stocks INTC, LU, ERICY, QCOM, CSCO, CS, Nokia Investment Style Buy low, Sell high OR Sell high, Buy low Experience 5 years He purports to be interested in Q.com yet doesn't know Irwin Jacobs or how to spell Motorola [marginmike gets off due to dyxlexia] but Clone3 can spel well enough to be familiar with Motorola. Therefore he is not interested in QUALCOMM. He is not constructing a balanced case, he is saying always why QUALCOMM will lose. Which is fine by me as critique by competitors keeps one awake to weaknesses. Tero in typical self-sacrificing Finnish fashion provides a similar service. I'd say he is a young electronics graduate, rejected by L M Ericsson he said because his price was too high. He is doing law because he sees $10s of millions there. Not so hot money in electronics. Presumably QUALCOMM didn't want him either as who would turn down the opportunity. So I'd say he sees this as practising his hoped for craft. And he likes arguing. I doubt he has many shares, but if he has some, they'll be in Ericy, maybe Lucent, Cisco and Nokia. But not The Q. He wants Q to not do too well in the patent business. I'd say he has a socialist inclination - let's give away Q's property for 1% to the seething masses as a gesture of goodwill. How's that for remote psychological analysis? Always fun! What say you number3? Accurate enough? And I'm not a patent attorney OR psychologist but know what cognitive dissonance means when I swing a golf club. Go Green$pan!! Hit some more home runs right over the end zone! Mqurice

To: Bux who wrote (16619)	10/16/1998 3:16:00 AM
From: Asterisk	Respond to of 152472

HEY!!! Everyone deserves respect on this board when they come with facts. Tero is tolerated when he lurks here because he provides the contrarian view, something sorely in need here. I realize everyone has a bad day so lets just chalk this up to a bad day O.K.?

To: Bux who wrote (16619)	10/16/1998 10:08:00 AM
From: Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Bux: Anohter person, I think it was Michael, spoke about the vibrating pager. I don't even know a patent number and I asked for one. The Q's attorneys may not have limited it, however, one cannot patent all standards, either known or unknown. As you should know, patenting what is unknown can read on both 112-1st and 112-2nd. The 1st paragraph for lack of disclosure and the 2nd paragraph for vague and indefiniteness. Clearly, you are misinformed. In re Zletz states (to paraphrase) that claims during examination are to be interpretted as broadly as possible. end of In re Zletz. However, in the court system, the claims of an invention are often given a narrow interpretation and the Q and whomever will battle over whether the claimed invention was enabling for high bandwidth applications. I really don't care about your investments in the Q. Personally, most everyone would be better investing in an Index 500, say Vanguard Index 500 (but that is another topic) Michael, unlike you Bux, has challenged me. I asked for patent Nos. He gave them to me. He, even though he isn't a patent attorney, made some pretty good arguments. Your last past (ie hose) was very good. You are tiring of me b/c I am right. You are the one bringing up supposition and if this, or if that. dave