The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company 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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company

QCOM 174.01

-0.3%

Nov 14 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: postyle who wrote (10085)	5/15/2000 11:06:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) of 13582

Your memory must be short. My posts to Darrell Smith have been primarily corrections of his far reaching statements that portray IDC as the next Qualcomm. His responses to me are very discombobulated and avoid the issues I raise. I would like to respond to some of the far-reaching statements and other fallacies you have re-posted here. Nor, can they utilize the patents for use in any type of TD-CDMA format. This was not only stated in the neopoint filing, but also stated in all other known Qualcomm filings previous to the neopoint agreement. The IDC/Qualcomm agreement allows the use of IDC's TDMA patents in a CDMA network. I think you are prematurely doubting Q's ability to use IDC's patents in a TD-CDMA system. Keep in mind the agreement will be read using the technical language of the year the agreement was made. TD-CDMA is a spread-spectrum technology and has primarily a CDMA based air-interface. It seems quite clear to me that Qualcomm is only prohibited from using the IDC TDMA patents in a TDMA based system. I think Qualcomm will have an easy time of defending their rights simply by showing that TD-CDMA is a CDMA based technology. It should also be noted that when Neopoint made public the limitations of the 94 agreement, the Neopoint licesning agreement was amended no less than two weeks after the original agreement and excluded any mention of their ability to utilize WCDMA, IDC's technology, and/or the 3g limitations. Why did they do this? Why did they make such a point to edit their licensing agreement? I think the most obvious answer is usually the best. Perhaps Neopoint was being very open and up-front originally but when they were made aware that was a sensitive area, they did the easy thing and removed it. I think we received a nice glimpse of the position Qualcomm will vigorously defend if challenged. When asked if IDC had anything to do with the editing of the agreement they simply stated "no comment". I'm surprised you even find that material enough to mention. That is IDC's response for just about every tough question. But, it is also true that IMT2000 platform REQUIRES that any company operating within the 3g arena eventually HAVE THE ABILITY to utilize a larger spread due principally to potential information overload and data type. It should also be noted that assymetric data within the ITU platform is designated for a spread of 15mghz and greater; any less than this and the system is constrained. It is this TD-CDMA data format that allows the transfer of assymetric downloads (one way communication) of large data files (such as TV, internet, etc.) If IDC's patents expire before commercialization of spreads greater than 10Mhz then it's kind of a mute point isn't it? The 94' agreement clearly DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF IDC'S TECHNOLOGY TO THE THIRD GENERATION. HOW COULD IT, THE THIRD GENERATION PLATFORM WAS NON-EXISTENT in 1994? This is the same lame-brain thinking that is typical of those arguing that IDC is a baby Qualcomm. No matter how many times it is pointed out that agreements can apply to technologies not even conceived, lame-brainers will keep repeating this mantra. It's like having your insurance company argue they don't have to fix your car that was hit by a new Prowler because that kind of car didn't even exist when you purchased your policy so how COULD it apply. Duh! Bux

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next