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 (16678)	10/16/1998 8:47:00 PM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

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 thebroad 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. Have you passed the bar yet? If you have I want to hire you to represent me next time I am in court, you have a flair for twisting the facts to support the unsupportable. You are right combination mobile phones/pagers are a well worn phenomenon. Until now the pager and the phone have been separate entities mashed into the same case (sometimes the pager is actually in the battery). Now here is IS-95 where one of the channels available to the phone is... The paging channel. Generally it is used for traffic from the base to the mobile, but there is nothing that says that the traffic cannot be a text message! To summarize I believe that I gave you that patent because it was one of the ones that they were claiming infringement on. HOWEVER, in this case there is no pager, the paging capability is built into the system. I am sure that one of the arguments that they and you will use is that the definition of "pager" is not there, but in reality pagers have only a limited 2 way communication base, definately not what this phone system has!

To: Dave who wrote (16678)	10/16/1998 11:57:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

OT OFF TOPIC Dave, Just in case you are honestly having a hard time understanding these simple issues, I will explain this one more time (sheesh). <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 never said Qualcomm should receive broad coverage. I was explaining that a narrow interpretation of Qualcomms patents would recognize that the Q's IPR applies to narrowband AND wideband CDMA. In other words I, and I think most participants of this forum, understand that patents are interpreted narrowly but that "narrow" in this context is entirely unrelated to the narrow in narrowband. You have a firm conviction that a narrow interpretation of the Q's IPR would exclude broadband but have given us no reason other than the MOTs vibrating pager patent does not apply to a cell phone. As I stated earlier, a vibrating pager alert is not a technological breakthrough, merely a new application of an existing invention. Vibrating alerts have been around alot longer than pagers. In any case, you should know that this type of patent is much more narrowly interpreted than inventions that are based upon genuine innovation. Since you will probably blather on about other irrelevancies anyway, why don't you explain why Mots vibrating pager IPR applies to all pager frequencies and all vibrating rates. Under a narrow interpretation, could I not market a vibrating pager that vibrated a little faster? A little longer? With a different air-interface? Give us a break!