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: SKIP PAUL who wrote (17218)	10/26/1998 10:43:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Skip Paul: Please re-read: ERS hereby agrees that Q's CDMA Technology includes, but is not limited to, Q's techniques for soft handoff, interference control, voice activity detection, power control, multiple receivers for multipath mitigration and CDMA signal design including forward error correction, PN sequence generation, pilot carrier and CDMA synchronization. Ericsson is allowed to develop their own techniques for CDMA as long as they don't infringe on Qualcomm's techniques. I saw in a later post that the date of this contract was 1989. This will definitely be an interesting case and if it is on Court TV, I will definitely fire up the olde VCR. dave

To: SKIP PAUL who wrote (17218)	10/27/1998 12:49:00 AM
From: Thomas Sprague	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

In an NDA ERICY is agreeing, for the purposes of the NDA only, that the technology is QCOM's. Remember the point of these agreements is evaluation of technology from someone else. They certainly reserve the right to say "no we already invented that." Which is what they are claiming in Texas. However, they have to prove that in court, which I believe is a big problem for them. My point is that pro forma agreement to ownership in a Secrecy Agreement is moot in court, and ERICY still must prove they perfected the art and patented it before QCOM. Thomas Sprague