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: Ramus who wrote (17093)	10/24/1998 12:39:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Walt - My take Re the "soft handoff" patent was basically the Ericsson patent concerned "soft handoff" in frequency/time space and the Qualcomm patent concerned "soft handoff" in code space Yes and no. Ericssons patent is very clear that TDMA is only used 'as an example'. Thus it is that they are trying to apply it to CDMA. You might be right that that is a weakness of the Ericsson patent, but that is a weak legal argument (see the debate Dave and I had over the application of patents in an old technology to a new technology.) The other major difference between the Qualcomm and Ericsson patents are that Ericsson's are truly very broad, simple and obvious (these are all related, but not exactly the same.). Qualcomm's are comparitively more complex/exact, much less obvious, and less broad. Therefore they are much stronger. Clark PS Just for kicks I looked at another set of the patents which are under dispute - the issue of not transmitting when a speaker isn't speaking. Although Ericsson's patent in this case is much better written than their 'patent' on soft handoff, it is still pretty clear that Qualcomm is not infringing it. About the only thing IS-95 and the Ericsson patent have in common is the technical version of the maxim that 'If you have nothing to say, don't say anything.'