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: Clarksterh who wrote (16879)	10/21/1998 5:39:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Clark, re WLL in USA using cdma2000, won't that be a major advantage for all those stuck on twisted pair? With spectrum costs hugely lower than C-block prices, cheaper infrastructure, SiGe chips and all that jazz, won't the economics of wireless make WLL desirable pretty well everywhere, including the USA? Though where last mile fibre is already installed it will take a while to compete - unless people want just one account from one company and they even abandon fibre. Also, you said in Yahoo! ---------------------------------------------------------------- "The Ericsson patents are indeed very broad, in fact probably too broad. When writing a patent it is important that it not smack of being an idea; patents are only for implementations of ideas. When a patent is too broad, and doesn't have much in the way of implementation details it is often very hard to defend. In addition, a patent must be for something which is non-obvious at the time it was written. This is typically hard to show after the fact (Newton's equations of motion are, after-the-fact, completely obvious, but no one found them for thousands of years.), but again I would say that Ericsson's patent is pretty obvious. If I knew nothing about cell phones, and you asked me to build a cell phone system, I would come up with what Ericsson had in an hour or two. The same is not true of the Qualcomm patent. ------------------------------------------------------------------ How come it took L M Ericsson nearly 10 years to assert their 1988 patent which they now claim covers everything - IS-95, cdma2000 and their vapourwear system? Maybe Globalstar is on the skids too! They were negotiating with The Q for IS-95 licences in 1996. Why bother if they own the property needed? This looks to me like a case of lawyers not understanding the technical stuff, or managers running away with a half-baked idea derived from some legitimacy in a technical sphere. I've seen that happen - Formula Shell was a hugely expensive mistake by Shell in the 1980s which happened for the same reason - a gap between the technical people and marketing hypsters who didn't understand the technical guff. Well, it seemed hugely expensive to me then, but L M Ericsson's expensive is going for a world record. This is a multibillion dollar shambles for them. Since L M Ericsson well into the 1990s denied it was possible to implement these soft handoff and other patents which they now assert, then they fail the implementation test. How can they claim a patent for something which they claim is impossible? Mqurice