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 (16649)	10/16/1998 7:46:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Bux What is interesting in my discussion here with everyone is that all feel that the Q is entitled to broad coverage on their IP. However, prior court cases have proven that companies aren't entitled to broad coverage. One example was Motorola and their vibrating pager. How about that other company that sued the Q, b/c they interpretted their claims broadly? To summarize everyone's arguments on the thread: It is ok for Qualcomm to receive broad coverage on their patents, however all other companies invention can only have narrow coverage. I want to thank Michael for the MOT example. Michael, one of the patent numbers was a patent for a vibrating "low profile" pager and was filed in 1992. Although integrated mobile phones/pagers are well known, MOT still did not receive the broad coverage on phones. However, interpretting their claims wrt the Q's arguments, MOT should receive broad coverage on the invention of a vibrating pager combined with a mobile phone. dave