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 (20312)	12/23/1998 10:24:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Listen...I know even less about patent law than I do about CDMA but if I let my ignorance impede me all the time I'd never get anywhere. I'm a firm believer that being an "outsider" is often an advantage which allows one to ask all sorts of stupid questions, some of which end up being profound and stimulate meaningful debate. I think you have to step outside of your patent lawyer suit for a moment and look at how things are moving in the real world. Clark has made an interesting point. Maurice just suggested that the US Government would be unlikely to back QCOM and the CDG if the IPR was shaky. Gregg has reiterated umpteen times that this whole debate with Ericsson about WCDMA wouldn't even be taking place if they really owned what they claim to own and don't NEED Q IPR.You need to refute these points of view to make your case. It's not good enough in this context just to say you don't think anyone holds blocking IPR. When you say "To be honest, I really feel that no one holds "blocking" IPR. Even if it was blocking, as rapidly as technology changes, those patents cannot remain "blocking" forever "...this is probably true generally but is it true IN THIS CASE? And forever is a long time, what about the next few years, and what is the cost of delay for ERICsson et al if they try to figure a new way? I also admit that I have no way of penetrating the question of what would happen if, in retaliation, ERICY refuses to license technology that it owns that is part of some other aspect of the network that has nothing to do with wireless. I suspect however that this would cause such grave problems for everyone involved that it will not be allowed to come to pass.In conjunction I also believe that that the vendors ie Nokia, Lu etc do understand who has done what and will not allow Ericcson to hold up their businesses indefinitely in an attempt to squish QCOM. So far everything seems to be going our way. To my knowledge nothing has happened to indicate Ericy and WCDMA are getting the upper hand. People, including myself, are undoubtedly confused, which is at least partly why the stock is just sitting around. I agree with you that court introduces a certain element of chance and am concerned that if cornered ERICY will not back down and will force the issue in the courts with the hopes that the element of chance will play in their favor. The question is was what are the implications for Qualcomm if they don't hold blocking patents? If you want to argue that they don't have blocking patents then I think you need to explain what's happening today in the context of that POV. In addition, I would like to know how you think this will play out if you think Q doesn't have the IPR. Dave