listen Guys, I regret having started the latest round of QCOM/ERICY mutual recriminations. IMO the energy would be much better spent discussing the 3G standards question. Both ERICY and QCOM have issued position papers, which can be found on their websites, and which for simplification I will post separately.
It appears to me that the crux of the matter is a fight about which systems, GSM or CDMAone will have an easier time migrating to this new standard. Both sides are making technical arguments for why their proposals are superior, and both admit that their proposals will give advantage to their own systems.
Are there real technical differences in these proposals? Why is a chiprate of 4.096MCps ( WCDMA) better than 3.6864 (QCOM)? QCOM claims that their chiprate would in fact be more efficient. What about GPS synchronization,and these adaptive antannas? A laymen like myself certainly can't begin to pick these issues apart. Perhaps some of you can help?
It's my opinion that to focus on royalties or royalty rates is to miss the point. Both sides are trying to use whatever leverage they have to meld a favorable outcome. ERICY, NTTDoCoMo, etc have an enormous installed base, and lots of momentum, and obviously would prefer if carriers had no incentive to choose CDMAone or CDMA2(b) over GSM in the interim between now and when these data filled networks can be fielded . QCOM seems to believe it has impregnable IPR and is refusing to license any CDMA system that is not CDMAone compatible.
So what is going to happen? At the moment it's looking as if there will not be convergence, unless QCOM's IPR is so powerful that WCDMA will be unable to proceed in any form with out it.Perhaps QCOM will be forced to relent and will license the IPR. Perhaps WCDMA will be entirely reinvented... Any opinions?
Once again, Sorry about the bad blood..
Dave |
