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 (17036)	10/23/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave - You can't be on both sides of the fence either<g>. Weren't you saying that you can't have too broad a patent, and the Ericsson patent at issue is definitely broad. Clark PS On the issue of whether it is the technology change that invalidates the Ericsson patent. It isn't the technology change that makes it invalid. Instead I would first argue that it is too broad (too close to an idea and too obvious), but that even if it were somehow determined that it were not too broad, CDMA implicitly encompasses 'soft handoff' at at least the level of detail that the Ericsson patent covers. Thus, Qualcomm almost certainly has papers from before the Ericsson patent application that show this. From a legal tactics standpoint it might not be smart to show the judge both arguments at once, but they are both valid and, IMO, strong arguments. PPS On the issue of juries in patent cases. I read decisions (typically appeals court or higher), for which, obviously, there are no juries. So I can't really answer the question. I know a lot about the philosophy (what is protected and why), but only a little about the process.