Steve - Q gets royalties on all 3 flavors of 3G, whether 1XRT, 2XRT, W-CDMA, TDMA.
Only on CDMA kinds of 3g (it is possible they have some piddly IPR in 3g TDMA, but if so I am not aware of it, and it isn't likely to be material). But for CDMA versions of 3g, so far Qualcomm has always gotten the same royalties as for CDMAOne. Qualcomm has been very clear on this, and it is hardly a surprise given that their IPR is for mobile cell CDMA, regardless of data rate or modulation scheme.
2. This is regardless of the data-enhancing transmission of EDGE (for TDMA) or GPRS (GSM/W-CDMA). Engineer, if you could: what is the relationship between EDGE and GPRS and the CDMA RF interface, i.e., if CDMA= transmission of coded packets of data that are routed and selected by the handset or basestation ASIC according to the code identifier? Is this an overlay on an underlying GSM/GPRS or TDMA/EDGE interface or software protocol?
GPRS is just a protocol stack (handshaking et al) that allows a TDMA system to provide bursty bandwidth-on-demand and connects a device straight to the internet. But it still suffers from all the disadvantages of TDMA systems - you have to design the system knowing that some pesky user in the neighboring cell could transmit at the same time you do and corrupt your data. EDGE is primarily a change in the TDMA/GSM RF interface which allows more bits to be stuffed in per hertz and in this sense it is similar to HDR. Oddly (i.e. I'm sure there is a reason, but I don't know what it is) the first generation of GSM/NA-TDMA/CDMAOne did not take full adavantage of the Signal to Noise ratio. With a change in the modulation scheme they could have stuffed twice as many bits in a given hertz. HDR allows this for CDMA, and EDGE does the same for TDMA. Note that the oft touted figures for EDGE assume 3 times as many bits per hertz, but the reality is that they can't get that except in a lone cell (e.g. in cell within a subway station or a building) since the noise level will ordinarily be to high. But EDGE still suffers from the same draw backs of TDMA cell systems - limited frequency reuse.
. 3G, as such, is meant to refer to enhanced data and enhanced speed of that data transmission. Thus, W-CDMA or TDMA 3G, if they truly exist, are different radio media of transmission to accomplish this, and if CDMA interface is the medium, then Q's IPR is relevant.
It amazes me how often I have to repeat this. Qualcomm's IPR is required for any mobile cell CDMA system. Period. No 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'. At some point someone may find a better system for mobile cell comm than CDMA, and at that point Qualcomm has a problem. But that is hardly immanent. In addition, it is possible that someone will find something that really enhances mobile cell CDMA, and is so important that Qualcomm has to trade IPR even-steven. Again this is not a huge threat, although probably bigger than the first. (MUD and smart antennas for CDMA fit into this category, although at this point they are still nowhere near as important as CDMA itself.)
When ERICY capitulated, Gregg wrote, and it was generally believed, that point #1 above would result. It was never clear to me why ERICY's contractual deal with Q on the patent litigation and the infra would necessarily bind other GSM vendors/carriers, such as NOK and in Euroland the GSM carriers or TDMA.
It doesn't. The patents do.
Plus, the lingering question whether ITU principles on non-discriminatory, non-monopolitic terms for licensing would, at the end of the day, pose a problem.
I read non-discriminatory to mean not differentiating among users of your IPR. You are probably better able to judge this than I but lose more sleep over Maurice's rants than this issue (i.e. not much).
5. Why have we heard nothing from ETSI recently. Did it's leverage on resisting use of CDMA-based interface in Europe cave when ERICY caved?
It's a non-issue. Undoubtedly some people will move to EDGE and GPRS, but given their recent delays I think it reasonable to assume that many European providers will move straight to W-CDMA when it becomes available. Qualcomm will collect good royalties on W-CDMA, and will probably sell a healthy number of chips into that market (albeit probably not with the same market share as for CDMA-2000).
Clark |
