Interdigital Communication(IDCC) 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.

Technology Stocks : Interdigital Communication(IDCC)

IDCC 357.54

-3.9%

1:35 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Gus who wrote (3892)	2/14/2000 12:21:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) of 5195

Why can't you have the integrity to acknowledge that in 1994 Qualcomm and IDC agreed on a CROSS-LICENSING agreement which involved the EXCHANGE OF PATENT RIGHTS where QCOM paid $5.5 million and up to this point, IDC has not paid a damn cent. Gus, I'll call it a cross-license if you insist but the chosen label doesn't change the fact that IDC has never made a dime off the cross-licensing agreement beyond the 5.5 million Q paid them and Qualcomm has made hundreds of millions of dollars of pure profit without sharing any of this with IDC. If IDC chooses to use Qualcomm's patents to sell IS-95 or WCDMA then they must pay the same royalty as the rest. Do you still think IDC management increased shareholder value with the 1994 agreement? What is unquestionable and easily verifiable is that QCOM paid $5.5 million to IDC for IS-95 usage under 10Mhz ONLY. Not quite. The NeoPoint IPO filing shows the language "IS-95 type". That means Qualcomm can use those IDC patents, royalty free, for standards other than IS-95 and the "bandwidth less than 10MHz" indicates Qualcomm will probably not be paying any royalties on these patents, even for 3G. What is unquestionable and easily verifiable is that IDC has not paid a single cent to QCOM even though the 1994 cross-licensing agreement contained a framework for royalties to be paid by IDC its normal sub-licensees for fair usage. You're bragging about this? That's because IDC is not participating in any revenue generated from mobile CDMA sales, licensees or ASICS even though it is a multi-billion dollar market growing at over 100% annually. IDC is missing out on this huge growth market. Of course they haven't paid any royalties under the 1994 agreement! Too bad for them! Hus, it's pretty evident from the direction and tone of your arguments that you are trying to portray IDC as something they are not and may never be. A dose of objectivity will do you some good and may end up saving you more than a few bucks. Bux

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next