The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. Message Board

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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread.

QCOM 172.29

-2.2%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (1286)	12/19/1999 2:28:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) of 12245

Jim, a little more fully, the words were 'royalty-free license use and to sublicense the use of those patents claimed by InterDigital to be essential to IS-95'. That means Qualcomm need make no future reference to InterDigital. Q! can do what it likes. I suppose Interdigital could try again on cdma2000 but I doubt that Qualcomm would need to be so accommodating this time around. Then again, you never know! The cdma2000 technology can be IS-95 based and still require cdmaOne licensees to get new royalty and licence agreements. You might recall the Korean licensees for cellular frequencies got in a tizz when they couldn't use Qualcomm's technology royalty-free in Korea for the higher PCS frequencies though both were IS95-based. The licences are individually tailored, not a cart-blanche eat-all-you-like agreement. Also, Qualcomm never used any Interdigital patents. You are misleading people [perhaps including yourself] thinking that Qualcomm used or bought rights to Interdigital technology. They paid money to Interdigital. That doesn't mean that Interdigital had any valid patents which Qualcomm needed. It was a bit like a blackmailer kidnapping your child and holding her hostage, claiming her to be the blackmailer's child and you don't get her back until the courts determine the case. You prefer not to wait because you have a life to lead so you pay the bandit some money and get your child back. The payment doesn't mean that you agreed that your child was the offspring of the payee. Contrary to your suggestion, I don't think it would be any fun at all if IDC managed to get Qualcomm in hagfish slime again. L M Ericsson did that for some time. It appears more likely that IDC claims on 3G are likely to cause the VW40 proposals to be bogged down, which would be a perverse but pleasantly ironic outcome. There seem to be so many IPR claims circling VW40 [alias W-CDMA] that it will never see the light of day even if the SETI-associated companies could make it work [Nokia couldn't make cdmaOne work well so I don't see that they, who have been working on it for most of the decade, can do VW40. So I certainly don't see L M Ericsson achieving W-CDMA complete with bells, whistles and racing stripes, without Qualcomm doing it for them]. This could be a Hagfish Gordian Knot full of slime. gordiansolutions.com I wouldn't want to be involved in that mess. Yukk! Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next