Wrong, again. I definitely do understand the significance of trials in the development of wireless technology. That's why I challenged you when you brought up the IDCC "seamless" handoff patent. It has not been the subject of trials, appears derivative of Q's patents, and could potentially infringe. To put the "seamless" title on it is worthless. I can call myself Mel Gibson but I don't think anyone will offer me $20m to act in a movie. That, Gussie, is the critical difference. The Q is being paid the big bucks and IDCC is not. There's clearly a reason.
But the point (and I do have one) is that it does not matter whether Q is part of the WCDMA standard-writing process, trials, etc., which you find so important if the soft-handoff and power control cannot be accomplished without using Q's patented technology. If I have a patent for shoelaces, I don't care how many shoes you design; so long as your shoes use shoelaces, I've got a right to royalties whether or not I participate in your design process. It doesn't matter to me whether the shoelaces are used in my low-tech (2G) Keds or in your (3G) AirJordan 3xSuperAirCushion3000 cross-country trainers. You still pay. Now, if you come up with nylon laces as opposed to the traditional leather laces, and try to tell me that's an innovation, I'll see you in court. Come up with self-adhering straps, and I'll either buy you out/settle and put you in a bind (like the Q did in '94). I'll also scream bloody murder in court because the straps perform the same function in essentially the same way.
My answer to the 27 other essential patent holders is: So what? If they are as essential as claimed, the holders would put their fingers around the manufacturers' throats just as readily as any one else. If they do not press for royalties to the extent that they can, then the patents are not as essential as claimed. As I told Tero previously, there are no charities in telecom.
If the maximum advantage is not being pressed by the holders of these essential patents, it's probably a bluff. Neither ERICY nor the numerous licensees think the Q is bluffing. Only Nokia thinks so, as far as I can tell, and that game is about to end.
What is the ITU's web-site address? I'll try to look into it but there's no guarantee that I'll understand the technical minutiae. Not an idiot just not an idiot savant.
I'm going to take Terrapin's advice. No more baiting. It's too cheap a thrill. |
