Technology StocksQualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: engineer who wrote (104714)8/21/2011 4:46:59 PM
From: Maurice Winn
2 Recommendations   of 147322
With this latest IBM effort, it will be a question of whether the Cyberphone is there to help the person, or the person is there to help the Cyberphone. Symbiosis is popular in nature, so that's the likely way it goes. For a while anyway, until the human component becomes like mitochondria in the human body = just a minor functionary in the big picture: August 18, 2011, 1:00 AMI.B.M. Announces Brainy Computer ChipBy STEVE LOHR
Since the early days in the 1940s, computers have routinely been described as “brains” — giant brains or mathematical brains or electronic brains. Scientists and engineers often cringed at the distorting simplification, but the popular label stuck.

IBMDharmendra Modha, an I.B.M. researcher, is the leader of the project to create cognitive computer chips.
Wait long enough, it seems, and science catches up with the metaphor. The field of “cognitive computing” is making enough progress that the brain analogy is becoming more apt. I.B.M. researchers are announcing on Thursday two working prototype cognitive computer chips.

The chip designs are the result of a three-year project involving I.B.M. and university researchers, supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The academic collaborators are at Columbia University, Cornell University, the University of California, Merced and the University of Wisconsin.

The results to date have been sufficiently encouraging that Darpa is announcing on Thursday that it will commit an additional $21 million to the project, the third round of government funding, which brings the total to $41 million.

The cognitive chips are massively parallel microprocessors that consume very little power. But they also have a fundamentally different design. The two prototype semiconductor cores each has 256 neuronlike nodes. One core is linked to 262,144 synapselike memory modules, while the other is linked to 65,536 such memory synapses.

The researchers call the design a “neurosynaptic core.”

“This is a critical shift away from today’s Von Neumann computing,” said Dharmendra Modha, an I.B.M. researcher who is the project leader. He is referring to the design and step-by-step sequential methods used in current computers, named after the mathematician John Von Neumann.

The new design, Mr. Modha said, should lead to chips suited for tasks that are difficult for computers like pattern recognition. They can learn on their own. “We aren’t there yet, but before long these chips will be able to rewire themselves on the fly,” he said.

Such cognitive chips, Mr. Modha added, will be adept at absorbing and interpreting huge amounts of data from increasingly low-cost digital sensors. For example, cognitive computers — using sensor measurements of air and water temperature, ocean tides, wind patterns and atmospheric pressure — could make more timely and accurate predictions of tsunamis and hurricanes, he said. ... continued...

Studying for exams will be easy = just plug in a memory module or access some cloud database.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Bill Wolf8/21/2011 4:53:00 PM
1 Recommendation   of 147322
Some Patents Are More Equal Than Others

It's easy to forget, as companies spend billions snapping up patents, that some are more valuable than others. The challenge for investors: gauging which are buying bazookas in their patent troves and which are settling for pea shooters.

Indeed, firms themselves may not always be totally clear what they're getting. Consider HTC. On July 6, the Taiwanese smartphone-maker paid $300 million for S3 Graphics and its 235 patents. A few days prior, the U.S. International Trade Commission had said that Apple infringed on two of S3's patents. So S3's intellectual property seemed good, if expensive, weaponry for HTC's own patent fight with Apple.

Trouble is the ITC didn't describe precisely what Apple devices infringed the patents until after the deal. In fact those related to Apple's Mac computers, not its more lucrative mobile devices like the iPhone. So S3's patents may offer less negotiating leverage.

HTC appears sensitive on the subject. Jefferies & Co. and Macquarie Equities Research each scheduled calls for clients with intellectual property analyst Florian Mueller, a critic of HTC's patent position. Both calls were canceled after HTC complained sources familiar with the matter say. HTC declined to comment.

Google may well have a good idea about the value of Motorola Mobility's 17,000 patents. What's not clear to outsiders is how useful the portfolio will be as Google battles Apple and Microsoft to protect its Android mobile software. One problem, argues Mr. Mueller: Mobility's strongest patents have been used to set industry standards. Thus, standard-setting organizations require Mobility to license the patents on a fair and reasonable basis to rivals. This may reduce Google's ability to use Mobility's patents as weapons.

This patent arms race is still on: Eastman Kodak has put its patent portfolio on the market. Hewlett-Packard may decide to cash in Palm's patents as it explores options for the unit's operating system webOS. But, as with Mobility, questions remain on how valuable Kodak's patents are given how many are already licensed. Investors should use their own intellectual property before getting carried away by the latest patent craze.
—Rolfe Winkler

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (104737)8/21/2011 5:13:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn
2 Recommendations   of 147322
The opposite will be true: <Wedge Partners analyst Brian Blair this morning offers a rundown on the forthcoming wave of “low cost smartphones,” which he thinks will be “the biggest trend of the decade” in tech.>

Nokia experienced that "biggest trend" which led to their demise - cellphones got cheaper and cheaper in a giant trend, but that is not the trend that dominated. Apple did the opposite, recognizing that what people really want is functionality, not price reductions.

If the functionality is worth $10,000 to them, they will happily pay $2,000.

It is clear that mobile Cyberspace is so enormously valuable to nearly everyone that piling more and more into the DeVices even if it costs big heaps is the trend that matters.

It would be quite reasonable for hundreds of millions of people to spend $10,000 on DeVices. Our brains are worth literally $millions [most brains are valued at over $1 million by USA road safety decision makers], so even $100,000 for a good enough enhancement to our brains would be perfectly reasonable.

That IBM thinking chip which was announced will make Cyberspace much more valuable for example.

If chips like that can be inserted into skulls, along with nerve transducers for vocal output, inductively coupled battery charging, contact lens retina scans, cochlea implant hearing, or just Earcell [tm] in the ear canal hearing "aids" then that combination of technology would be worth $100,000 if linked to ubiquitous gigabit data to Cyberspace.

Let's say 1 billion people buy simple versions of such DeVices at $10,000 per person, that's a $10 trillion industry.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: bigb who wrote (104738)8/21/2011 5:25:49 PM
From: Maurice Winn
6 Recommendations   of 147322
It's neither the number of patents nor their "quality" which matter. <which is also a good indication that perhaps we should be looking more closely at the quality of patents rather than the sheer number. >

What matters is market power. If a company has one rinky dink little "low quality" patent, but it blocks a $1 trillion revenue stream, then the producer of that revenue stream will be happy to pay $1 billion to unblock it. Or $10 billion.

A patent is a legal monopoly.

Qualcomm left $300 billion on the table by providing the intellectual property for the mobile Cyberspace revolution at only 4%.

Now, stupid little obscure patents are being used to block those $trillions so of course those doing the blocking are collecting huge revenues comparable to Qualcomm's royalties though all they did was buy a job lot of patents while nobody was looking and while few understood the value of the market and what a few poxy little patents could do when backed by the force of law.

Now there are large royalties being extracted from the LTE stream with Qualcomm's share a minor piece of the action.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (104785)8/21/2011 7:37:02 PM
From: bigb
   of 147322

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: slacker7118/22/2011 7:24:53 AM
   of 147322
If anybody still wants a TouchPad for $100, they are in stock right now at Barnes and Noble.

I own an iPad but it is a no brainer at this price.

EDIT....I just a read a thread about this deal over on SlickDeals and it seems some people are getting their orders randomly cancelled. So I guess we'll see whether I actually get the tablet.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: MorganBucks8/22/2011 7:28:20 AM
   of 147322
Cell Phones Change The World
August 16, 2011: Journalism is increasingly all about cell phone cameras, and sending picture and video files anywhere in the world via that hand-held computer. While the U.S. effort to help people in dictatorships (China, North Korea, Cuba and so on) get access to uncensored news and communications has helped, it’s the milder dictatorships (most of Africa and the Middle East) that benefit from cell phones and the Internet just as they are. The high end dictatorships (China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria) have professional security forces that lock down all forms of communication, not just cell phones and the Internet. These efforts often work, and the coalition of hackers worldwide, and U.S. government cash, is helping to even the fight. But so far, the secret police are still in the lead. Meanwhile, the milder dictatorships are too poor, or too weak, to do much more than censor print, radio and TV. The Internet and cell phones (especially texting) are left alone. And this is where popular journalism has revolutionized how the news gets collected and distributed. In effect, everyone with a smart phone (that has a camera capable of taking pictures and videos) can be a journalist. And many are. In poor countries, most Internet users access the web via their cell phones. They also access social networking sites (like FaceBook), where groups of these amateur journalists connect with each other, and those in foreign countries who can handle posting embarrassing (to the local government) videos and pictures in FaceBook, or any other web location where people will see it. Using their cell phones, the web location of useful (and uncensored) news quickly gets around. This not only drives the dictators nuts, it is increasingly driving them out of power.

This citizen journalism is also forcing the mainstream media (whether government controlled or not) to move faster, and with more accuracy and honesty. Thus did two inventions, the cell phone, and cameras as part of cell phones, radically change how news was gathered and distributed. These new developments also made it more difficult for dictators to stay in power.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (104785)8/22/2011 9:41:30 AM
From: Jim Mullens
   of 147322
mQ, re: Qualcomm left $300 billion on the table..............................

Now, stupid little obscure patents are being used to block those $trillions so of course those doing the blocking are collecting huge revenues comparable to Qualcomm's royalties though all they did was buy a job lot of patents while nobody was looking and while few understood the value of the market and what a few poxy little patents could do when backed by the force of law. “


Lots of what ifs there mQ.

Should IMJ and company have not signed with ERICY in ’99 / not agreed to FRAND, rather held out for better terms / rolled the dice for a favorable ruling from the Euro courts ?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (104780)8/22/2011 12:40:02 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer
   of 147322
This is an extremely poor quality piece of journalism. Note the following:

In Microsoft's case against Motorola, an ITC judge will hold an administrative hearing akin to a trial.

The administrative judge does not have the final say in an ITC hearing. The commission itself reviews the judge's ruling and can confirm or reject it. The commission members are not experts but are appointed in a politically active process. If they rule that an infringement has taken place, they can ban the import of the infringing device. And while all that is going on, the victim can appeal to a patent court.

The intermediary rulings of the ITC are unnecessary and add just a lot of red tape and expense to an issue that should be aired in a knowledgeable court. And, while one can speculate on whether a jury is qualified to make decisions on sometimes very technical matters, a court is the proper place to resolve the dispute (or out of court, if both parties agree to do it that way).

To speed up patent court decisions would require simply adding more patent courts, and the cost would be lower than maintaining the ITC, which is an anachronism created as part of the Smoot-Hawley Act, which in itself was one of the most protectionist pieces of legislation ever written, and which played a major role in triggering the Great Depression of 1929.

It is also likely that new patent legislation under consideration in Congress will likely be passed and signed by the President, probably this year. This new legislation, when combined with recent Supreme Court rulings, is likely to reduce the flurry of patent related lawsuits because it places emphasis on the essential processes, with starting date determined by the date of the patent filing. A lot of patent trolls, as well as some of the bigger enchiladas will find that the patents they hope to make money on are no longer valid. Or will have expired by the time all these questions are sorted out in court.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: slacker7118/22/2011 2:59:51 PM
2 Recommendations   of 147322
IDCC Rising On Rumor Of Qualcomm Interest

Text Size
By Tiernan Ray

Shares of wireless patent holder InterDigital (IDCC) are up $1.59, or 2.5%, at $64.57, a bit better than the market, apparently prompted by a rumor that wireless chip titan Qualcomm (QCOM) is mulling a bid for the company, with one price cited at an unbelievable $115 per share.

From my brief communications with the Street on the matter, the rumor is not widely circulating among the analyst, and few seem to be interested in giving it any credence. The problem with the rumor, analysts express to me, is that Qualcomm already has significant patent hodings in everything wireless, making it hard to imagine they would buy IDCC, much less pay a monstrous premium.

InterDigital has been much in play of late, with the intense focus on intellectual property in wireless, following Google’s (GOOG) $12.5 billion bid for Motorola Mobility (MMI), and the $4.5 billion buy of Nortel Networks patents by a consortium consisting of Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), and others.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.