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 358.29

-3.7%

12:02 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3920)	2/14/2000 1:56:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) of 5195

Darrell, the projections that IDC will collect large royalties on 3G CDMA appear to be based on the belief that the that the 1994 agreement between Qualcomm and IDC only applies to IS-95. Your argument that the agreement is limited to IS-95 appears to be based on two things, 1) That CDMA2000 didn't exist at the time of the agreement and 2)That Qualcomm must sign new CDMA2000 agreements with IMT2000 partners. Unless you can come up with stronger support for your argument, I think it is quite clear that the 1994 agreement does extend to 3G technologies. First, while the name CDMA2000 was not decided upon in 1994, the technology was being developed. But this is not relevant because contractual agreements can extend to technologies that don't exist simply by defining what the agreement does not include. It appears this was the case when the agreement was extended to include "IS-95 type" technologies and technologies with a bandwidth of "under 10 MHz" even though there were no mobile CDMA technologies in existence with a bandwidth that wide. Do you stand by your statement that: 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 other support you offer is that Qualcomm must sign new CDMA2000 agreements with IMT2000 partners but you don't explain how these other agreements will nullify the '94 agreement. You seem to be suggesting that Qualcomm will give up the patent rights they acquired in '94. Why would they do that unless IDC had a bargaining chip that was worth more? Without control of the IPR that was "cross-licensed" (I still think it was more of a "sale") in '94, IDC will not have much of a chance to get fat 3G royalties. Previous management has left this company in shambles and while I can sympathize with shareholders that bought in before 1994, I have little sympathy for those who buy in now that the facts are evident. Other sincere opinions welcome, Bux

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next