tcd, Qualcomm did NOT sublicense a patent from IDC. Qualcomm paid IDC several million dollars to get them off their back and as Irwin Jacobs said at the time, to remove the threat of litigation which was delaying the acceptance of CDMA by Qualcomm customers who were concerned about an overhanging court case. Qualcomm thought it better to pay some money to be able to act freely. It wasn't a normal licensing situation.
Nokia would form a deal with IDC for similar reasons. If Nokia can make GSM last another day or two, that is worth many millions to them. If they can get a bit of FUD going on the validity of Qualcomm claims to 3G then that is all to the good and worth millions if not billions to Nokia. If by a fluke of ignorant jury decision-making, IDC was awarded rights to CDMA technology, that would be worth a fortune to Nokia too. Juries and judges don't always make sensible decisions - that's why appeals are made and won often enough.
Nokia is enjoying vast GSM profits. When CDMA arrives in force everywhere, Nokia will be just another CDMA merchant. Unless they can soon get some CDMA products on the shelf, they'll be an also-ran instead of the world market leader which they now are in GSM.
Nokia benefits from the idea that IDC is a big player in W-CDMA, which is an IPR disaster area. Many have moaned about the IPR costs of cdmaOne. If they didn't like cdmaOne IPR costs, they'll fell ill when they get the W-CDMA bill. That's why W-CDMA is a dead duck. It has zero technical advantage over cdma2000 or even HDR, if it can ever be made to actually work in less than a truck-sized handset without Qualcomm actually doing it.
No advantage with higher cost is not the ideal marketing combination.
So, there you are! Yes, they are just opinions and possibilities.
Here is an indication of from the Nokia website on the IDC deal. <Nokia's in-depth know-how of wireless systems is acknowledged world-wide, and Nokia plays a central role in taking the future-proof GSM platform further into third-generation telecommunications systems with the UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) and IMT-2000 (International Mobile Telecommunication System 2000) technology.>http://wwwdb.nokia.com/pressrel/webpr.nsf/5655df1cd51f86f8c225661b005e27c0/c225663600509ded4225670b0049536b?OpenDocument
GSM is NOT future-proof. GSM is Toast! To say it is 'future-proof' is absurd. GSM providers have a huge cost disadvantage to upgrade to 3G or HDR compared with cdmaOne operators.
Maurice |
