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 (17240)	10/27/1998 9:35:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave - What about these two patents; 5,101,501 assigned to Qualcomm which was filed on 7 November 1989 and 5,109,528 assigned to Ericsson which has an effective filing of 14 June 1988. Both teach methods of Handoff. Although the US is first to invent, Qualcomm will have difficulty proving that they reduced to practice and then decided to file for a patent more than 1 year later. You are assuming that both patents are equally well written. They are not - as we have discussed extensively. I merely stated that Qualcomm's first patents may not be not enabling for high-bandwidth applications. I would be stunned, given the precidents, if this turned out to be a factor of any size in the case. Again as we have discussed before. Is there any case law to back up your position (other than the dissent in Hughes v. US). Clark PS Dave - it this repeating of the negatives as if they were new and weren't outweighed by the positives that gets you your reputation of being anti-Qualcomm.

To: Dave who wrote (17240)	10/27/1998 1:42:00 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 152472

Give it a rest, Dave. The debate on patents has gotten very repetitive and boring.

To: Dave who wrote (17240)	10/27/1998 4:55:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

post.messages.yahoo.com@m2.yahoo.com Some interesting history all in one place. Ericy vs The Q! Thanks Greg! Mqurice PS: Dave, you didn't use the word flippism. The suggestion that anything can happen, there is only 1% or 3% chance of The Q! or Ericy getting a clean sweep, that is is all very problematic, that there are many ways from A to B etc and so on leads to the conclusion that all patent cases are decided arbitarily = flippism. I say that judges and patent cases are based in some rationality. The particular stuff we are dealing with here seems to mean, any way I measure it, by any reasonable reading of 'seeing whether a channel is clear in the other base station' and all the rest, that QUALCOMM will have a clean sweep and the charades will be ditched. Look at all the noise and distraction L M Ericsson has created. FUD in profusion. Even patent people seem puzzled! Amazing!