SI
SI
discoversearch

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 371.89+1.9%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Quincy who wrote (3917)2/14/2000 12:41:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth  Read Replies (2) of 5195
 
Qunicy; i've not read Gus comments. but will say that IDC's agreement with Qualcomm was pertinent to IS-95 only. CDMA2000 was non-existant at the time the original legal agreement was formed; it could not have been included in the original agreement on this basis alone.

The technology that is applicable IN Is-95 must be transferred to CDMA2000 - Qualcomm must sign NEW CDMA2000 agreements with IMT2000 partners. The transfer of the technology is through the means of signing new agreements. If Qualcomm did not need to sign new CDMA2000 agreements relative to IMT2000 standards, they wouldn't be so vigorously pursuing this task currently.

The argument that IS-95 technology is contained within CDMA2000 is obviously correct. But both are separated by the chasm of international agreement. It is irrelevant whether IS-95 and CDMA2000 are based upon similar modes of functionality and frequency transmission (or banding as I assume Gus is referring to). IS95 (A and B) is IS95, and CDMA2000 is CDMA2000. Both are separately identifiable documents, both by the international standards' bodies, the IMT2000 and, and I would presume, in a court of law.

A company can not guarantee the transfer of one technology defined in one standard to similar technology defined in a separate standard without listing that technology in a licensing agreement.

CDMA2000 was non-existant when IDC signed the IPR inclusion with Qualcomm. New agreements must be established. The basis of those new agreements are debatable - but clearly IDC's technology transfer from IS-95 to CDMA2000 has already been made clear to Qualcomm in meetings. Additional technology carried within CDMA2000 is also being addressed under IDC's "essential" ownership.

This same type of legal morasse kept IDC from fulling collecting royalties from Japan (handset sales within Japan) under their TDMA standard known as "PDC". A country has the "right" to establish their own communication standards and exclude certain parties from participating in that standard. Currently, though, IDC, through their agent in Japan, is pursuing proper payment from the Japanese for PDC sales within Japan. IDC's patent renewal within the U.S. was obviously applicable only to the U.S. If IDC were to pursue a similar track in Japan, the players who've not paid up their would end up owing significantly more later than if they simply agree to terms now.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News