Clark Hare:
This surprised me a little. So this begs several questions. First when do we hit 10MHz in 3g, and you probably know the answer to that better than I (I'd guess sometime well after 2005 - does anyone really need a semi-mobile bit rate of 3 or 4 Mbps which is higher than HDTV video will probably be at that point?) It also begs the question of whether IDCs rate will go up when they try to renegotiate. It was a pittance at the last agreement, but I'll defer discussion on this to number 3.
Clark. three of the approved 3g standards operate in wider spreads, spreads exceeding 10mghz. also, CDMA2000, in tests was shown to operate more efficiently in spreads bw 10mghz and 15mghz under varied circumstances (read ITU documentation in this regard). if you'd like to see copies of the studies, would be happy to produce them. as for begging the question regarding IDCC's rate...obviously times change. Qualcomm originally licensed the technology from IDCC when CDMA was a whisper and on practically no radar screens relative to actual use. It now comprises 10% of the digitial use worldwide (with TDMA standards comprising the other 90%). aren't you assuming too much when you imply that IDCC's licensing rate the second time around will again be a mere pittance?
2) The fact that the IDC license is only for patents prior to the license has been discussed before, so I won't discuss it here again.
has it really? could you point to those posts or discussions as i've read no discussion on this issue with clarity or convincability from those on the Qualcomm side of the fence. it is an extremely important issue, yet i've read no discussions on it.
3) IDC has always claimed rights over everything under the sun.
an example please. this is a strong statement which is not supported historically. they've claimed air interface for TDMA IS54/136, PDC, GSM standards - all TDMA based - to which Nokia recently agreed. is Nokia really that stupid?
They invented TDMA don't you know (at least according to some of the IDC threadsters)?
you are correct, they invented a significant portion (specifically the air interface) of the TDMA methods applied in the IS54/136, GSM, PDC, and GPRS standards. this was fully recognized by the international bodies approving the standards at the time. there are other TDMA methods outside the context of these standards (not many, however) to which IDCC does not lay claim. it is the standards. Nokia agreed to this by licensing with IDCC.
Thus the statement that they are claiming rights to all modes of 3g CDMA surprises me not at all. The question is how realistic are their claims, and how 'essential' are they really. The best measure of this is that IDC threadsters are the most serious and industrious on-line investors I have ever seen, and they do thousands of hours of research and I have yet to be pointed to one patent that is in even close to being in the same league as Qualcomm's.
give an example please. i've read many of the same "patents" and did not come to a similar conclusion. there are also over 100 patents pending in the US since late 1996 through 2000 not yet approved, but in all likelihood will be (from what I'm told) to which you nor I have access. nevertheless, it is on the basis of several of these claims that essentially to WCDMA handset application is made.
(Several I've been pointed to haven't been worth the paper they were printed on.)
i've religiously read your posts and can only recall one patent you discussed from Gary Lomp which was really a non-essential IPR that was not applicable to the 3g standard. Lomp no longer works at IDCC. what others have you discussed?
In addition, using some of my own filters I've tried to find IDC's best patents. Again, nothing close to Qualcomm's.
very interesting. could you give an example please. if you're willing to make these claims, i would hope you'd also be willing to back them up.
Thus, my moderately informed opinion is that all 3g CDMA modes will have multiple companies to whom royalties are owed, but that the sum total of everyone else's royalties will be less than Qualcomm's. Will IDC collect some? Perhaps. Is it something for Qualcomm to worry about? No.
isn't that interesting. you don't have access to over 100 IDCC applied patents relative to 3g as discussed through the ITUU meetings (methodology was discussed), yet your moderately informed opinion concludes sum total that Qualcomm is the king of the hill. You also presuppose that Qualcomm has nothing to worry about - yet it was Nokia that licensed 3g technology from IDCC.
The only real news to me was the 10MHz thing (a very mild Q! downer) and the details of the Q! licensing agreement with Q! licensees (very helpful in trying to understand Q's strategies.).
as for the "10mghz thing", I would suggest that you review the ITU open documents fully before concluding this is a mild downer. it is actually very significant for TDMA, TDD and TD-SCDMA - three of the 5 approved 3g standards. tests involving CDMA2000 have also shown improved operability in the 10mghz-15mghz relative to data applications - thus, a partial reason for Qualcomm's need to invent and deploy HDR.
|
