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: JGoren who wrote (17084)	10/25/1998 4:19:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

JGoren: Just because there are two ways to accomplish a result, they need not infringe on one another--nor block one another. Only two ways? Haven't I been stating on this thread that there are an infinite ways from point A to point B. The straight line does not necessarily have to be the easist way. I think you, and possibly all on this thread, need to re-evaluate Qualcomm's broad coverage. As I stated to Clark, the US is 'first to invent'. Ericsson has foreign priority dating back to 14 June 1988, which means that any and all 'prior art' must pre-date this priority date. If Qualcomm has a piece of prior art that was published with one year of the '528 patent's priority date, all Ericsson has to do is file an affadavit along with evidence proving that the date of invention is before the prior art date. the Ericy method might "work" but not efficiently or practically under cdma. One receives a patent for functionality, however efficiency runs under an unexpected results. See Graham V. John Deere. The fact is you can't monopolize through patent protection the concept of handing off from one cell to another but only the precise method used, and small differences in how it's accomplished can make a big difference as to whether it works in an acceptable manner in the real world. Read the claims of the '528 patent. JGoren, you might be an attorney, you might be a good or great attorney. However, you are not an IP (Intellectual Property) attorney. How quickly the arguments change. More than one way to go from point A to B, huh? As I recall, both you and The Profit, accused me of 'practicing law without a license', it appears that you are trying to practice IP Law without a license and one needs to be licensed before the PTO to practice before the Office. dave