Why do the IDC shareholders continue to parade this around as if it meant something?
I think the real question is "why do the QCOM supporters continue to rationalize that the limitations in the '94 agreement are a non-issue?"
Since the '94 agreement debate seems to have been covered before countless times, I'll go back in time and grab the pertinent text...
"...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?
...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."
Message 13711899
In addition to the 10Mhz limitation in the '94 agreement is the limitation of QCOM's use of IDCC's technology to "...every patent issued on or before March 7, 1995."
Now, Bux, I see you have been arguing your "takes" on the '94 agreement all morning over on Raging Bull. But I believe the issue has been covered here thoroughly. You have your opinion, and it differs with many on this thread.
Whether it is true that QCOM and IDCC have met earlier this year to work something out in this regard or not, I don't know for certain. But we'll all know soon enough.
If you could so kindly remind yourself that your opinions and conclusions regarding the '94 agreement have been posted, acknowledged, and placed into memory by those who read this thread -- then we won't have to keep circulating old rebuttals to your old arguments. |
