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 (16683)	10/17/1998 9:40:00 AM
From: Dave	Respond to of 152472

Bux: The Q's patents which were cited to me, want to know the filing dates? 1991, 1992, 1993 and some CIPs in 93, too. Are you going to tell me that those patents are enabling for high bandwidth applications? That patent on a vibrating alert, was a specific method of some sort of vibration in a low profile pager. I, too, was under the impression that vibrating alerts are well known within the art, and was also under the impression that the patents went back into the late 70s/early 80. I still stand by my statement that: It is [[proper] for Qualcomm to receive broad coverage [or interpretation] on their patents, however all other companies invention[s] [may] only [be interpretted narrowly]. and furthermore, those companies may only receive coverage on the narrow interpretation. Under a narrow interpretation, could I not market a vibrating pager that vibrated a little faster? A little longer? With a different air-interface? Sure you can, however, I was arguing putting the vibrating pager in a integrated cell phone/pager. You didn't answer the statement. Maybe you need to read the MPEP again, section 700, on the interpretation of claims and possibly some case law. dave