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: DaveMG who wrote (16967)	10/22/1998 4:30:00 PM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Remember what Mqurice said, this is worth $billions. Ericy has nothing to lose to PR their case hoping for to Qualcomm to blink. Meanwhile Dr. Jacobs is sitting there looking at the 4 Aces in his hand. Jim

To: DaveMG who wrote (16967)	10/22/1998 5:39:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Having read (skimmed) the patent stuff previously posted this afternoon, my reaction is that the method of handoff is decidedly different. What I got was that Ericy communicates to two towers and for a time both handle (send) the signal to the mobile handset. On the other hand, Qualcomm communicates a protocol and when the signal goes below a certain strength level it hands off to the new tower the signaling to the handset. On the surface, these are two very different methods of dealing with the handoff. Please correct if I haven't got it right. I have heard that the federal judge may have assigned the case to a master (someone expert in patents). Presumably, the master will examine the parties' claims and make a recommendation to the judge. The master's report could, and probably will, determine the outcome of the patent claims, since judges usually follow the recommendations of their masters, particulary in arcane areas such as this.