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: Gregg Powers who wrote (20346)	12/23/1998 10:41:00 AM
From: engineer	Respond to of 152472

I think the point to go along with this is that they also created a market for this IPR and have a product line based on it. without this, the patents would be worth very little. Motorola has their own 68000 processor and powerPC processor which did not use Intel patents. They designed around them, but it took them a few years and they never built up a marketplace like the Pentium with such a software and hardware following. The worth here to copy an Intel patent comes from the market share. This is a key point as well for QCOM. If we were not so much of a market threat, then going after our patents would not be necessary.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (20346)	12/24/1998 3:19:00 PM
From: Dave	Respond to of 152472

Gregg: I felt that I needed to respond to you. Once an "inventor" has an idea that becomes a patent, that "inventor" is allowed a monopoly on that particular idea for a predetermined period of time. Upon the grant of a patent, then this idea is published for the public to view and, if need be, modify. Companies spend millions to create proprietary technology positions. If competitors could simply choose to ignore a patent position and copy such inventions, then the technological world that we enjoy would rapidly descend into chaos. I completely agree with you and that is why the US has an extremely strong patent system. However, once a patent is published, if another "inventor" determines a way of "distinguishing" themselves over that patent, and it is a non-obvious way, then that other "inventor" is entitled to a patent and also a monopoly on that idea. How about software? Should I be able to "copy" the internal elements of Microsoft Windows, rewrite the GUI, and claim the technology as my own? How many software algorithms are inherent in QC's implementation of CDMA? Should none of these inventions be protected? I think Software code is still "non-statutory" subject matter and it cannot be patented. However, Software can be copyrighted. Most likely, Qualcomm (or any other company) that receives a patent will publish the software code in the patent. Why is Cadence Design suing Avant! for theft of trade secrets? Trade secrets are an entirely different "animal" than a patent. However, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights and Trade Secrets are considered to be Intellectual Property. For example, the formula to Coke is a trade secret. If Coca-Cola patented the formula for Coke, once the patent expired, anyone could produce Coke and Coca-Cola could do nothing about it. dave