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: puzzlecraft who wrote (31832)	6/6/1999 6:11:00 PM
From: puzzlecraft	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

OT: Congratulations to Silicon Investor for 10,000,000 messages! John

To: puzzlecraft who wrote (31832)	6/7/1999 8:31:00 AM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

John - Re Patent expiration and royalty stream: From my conference call notes at the end of the last quarter: << Royalty expiration - They said that the royalty rate was the same whether the manufacturer used one patent or many. (Note that I took this to mean that someone who signs a royalty agreement cannot weasel out of it by trying to substitute their own IPR at a later date as they figure out the system, but it also has the effect of making the royalty stream last longer than many of the key patents.)>> Clark

To: puzzlecraft who wrote (31832)	6/7/1999 8:58:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

John and Clark: re. IPR and questions: Clark's notes and recollection are the same as mine, and the thread had a bit of discussion about this point at the time of the CC. Q!'s position on IPR is highly favorable in the IP context, but also somewhat unusual, I believe. Two questions would be whether: 1) the statutory expiration of essential patents can be extended/ignored by virtue of continuous refinements at the margin of the technological specs. of the technology or with respect to specific applications of the technology for wireless features and 2) on a royalty basis, whether licensing, let's say, a peripheral Q! patent on some feature of CDMA should entitle Q! to the same royalties as license of the essential CDMA patents. I suppose of customers sign these license agreements, they would be bound, at least as to the second point. Maybe someone with some IPR background can give us some flavor. Regards and, hopefully, congratulations. Steven