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: JGoren who wrote (23248)	2/23/1999 10:19:00 AM
From: kech	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Thanks JGoren - What is the issue that hinges on whether anybody had done CDMA work before 1988? If QCOM hadn't worked on CDMA before 1988 does this give more credence to the ERICY 1988 patent? Just wondering. Tom

To: JGoren who wrote (23248)	2/23/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: jpbrody	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

JGoren, thanks for posting that summary. Can you say what this hearing is for? What will be decided at the end of it. I took a quick look at the 5088108 patent. Here's my take on it. It discloses a Ericy method for solving the multi-reflection problem. The method is to use two base stations per cell and these two base stations broadcast the same signal on the same frequency at the same time, but with varying modulation. From these two signals, the handset can decode the original signal. I have no idea if CDMA uses a system like this. Is Qualcomm arguing that they don't infringe on the patent, or are they arguing that the patent should be invalid? -- Jim

To: JGoren who wrote (23248)	2/23/1999 3:04:00 PM
From: Nancy Haft	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

My thanks, too, for being our eyes and ears at the trial, for gamely sticking it out through really BORING stuff, and for persevering with your post despite AOL's really annoying habit of breaking a user's connection. Marginmike, I had the same thought about Siemens/IDC, but Brian tells us this is not so. Hmmmmm. Jon, I wish I could see the Jupiter Venus conjunction. Here in Seattle we haven't seen the freakin' sun or blue sky in a hagfish's lifetime, make that two hagfish's lifetimes. It's making me very grumpy. :-(

To: JGoren who wrote (23248)	2/23/1999 6:07:00 PM
From: Ingenious	Respond to of 152472

JGoren thank you for the update on the trial. Because of you and people like you this thread is about 2000x times better than any information my brokers have ever suggested. I also might add that I have made about 2000x more $$ based on information from SI than any other source of investment information (Ok, maybe 2000 is a bit high). Thanks so much for the input. Together the members of this thread have more real information than any ANALyst could ever put together at any of the brokerages. By the way, a lot could get done in the Markman. Both parties will definitely reasses their position after this portion of the trial. This Markman trial should really cut through the BS that the parties are trying to fling. Leland

To: JGoren who wrote (23248)	2/24/1999 2:51:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

JG - Thanks for going to the Markman hearing. Some info on the patents you listed: Patent RE036017 is a reissue of 5088108 and both deal with making sure that in a single cell, with two different basestation transmitters transmitting the same thing, that the two basestations do not step on one another at the mobile. (Imagine that the mobile is right next to one tranmitter and far from the other. The further signal will be delayed by the extra distance and thus the mobile could be receiving a '1' from one transmitter and a '0' from the other.) This scheme (two basestations in one cell) is used for a variety of reasons, but the one given in the patent is to avoid radio shadows. For each mobile the basestations delay the signal differently depending on where that particular mobile is within the cell. I cannot see how this applies to anything that Qualcomm does. CDMAOne does not care about time diversity of this sort since the rake receiver removes it anyway (the two separate basestations essentially act as a bizarre kind of multipath.) The rake receiver uses the orthogonality of the Walsh codes and non-correlation of the PN code to remove any timing errors. Perhaps Ericsson is trying to use some little tiny piece of these patents, but if so I don't know what piece and in any case that is problematic for Ericsson (much more open to 'lack of novelty' claims by Qualcomm - for instance if they are trying to claim that they invented the concept of two basestations in one cell). If this is the best that Ericsson can do I think that they have a problem. Clark PS Note that I am not saying that the Ericsson patent isn't valid, only that it is probably a big big stretch to apply it to CDMAOne. PPS The English in patent 5088108 is something that needs to be read to be believed. I've never seen a 300 word sentence before.

To: JGoren who wrote (23248)	2/24/1999 11:04:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

JG - If you happen to make it out to the Qualcomm/Ericsson court again, could you do me a huge favor (if it is convenient) and get the numbers for all of the patents that Ericsson is claiming against Qualcomm. I originally asked Qualcomm for them several times, but gave up when they never responded. TIA (And again, thanks for going out there the one time already, even if you never go again.) Clark