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 (17214)	10/26/1998 7:17:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

To Dave: All I was referring to is that if Ericy loses and was counting on forcing the Q to license one or more of its patents to continue with IS 95, and that possibility is gone, doesn't that cut off a potential weapon for Ericy - not just "a fly in the ointment". Chaz

To: Dave who wrote (17214)	10/26/1998 11:18:00 PM
From: Ingenious	Respond to of 152472

Dave, congratulations on holding up the IP fort here on the thread. My hats off to you as you have provoked more thoughts on this thread than were here last time I checked. I think people are begining to see that IP Law deals with science but is far from an exact science. One thing to note is that IS-95 is a standard and not a science onto itself. Hopefully people on this thread will at least come to realize that there are many ways to achieve similar results if they are done in a substantially different way and not infringe a patent. IS-95 is one standard but perhaps IS-95000 could do the same with a twist at the begining and a twist at the end. For those who continue to have CDMA tunnel vision, these concepts may sound absurd. Oh well. IMHO, Leland