So IF NOK,ERICY,NTT, of IDCC had any valid IPR for 3G services.. Then for God's sake.. Why hasn't IDCC, NOK, ERICY, stood up and yelled at the top of their lungs.. HEY, QCOM.. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. And continue on with a law suit to bring QCOM into complience
pcstel, QCOM is free to enter licensing agreements with anyone willing to pay them for use of their technology. No company should (nor will) stop anyone else from licensing their patents.
By the same token, IDCC is free to license their patent portfolio to anyone willing to pay for use of their technology (such as Nokia).
But, no one is trying to stop QCOM's liscensing practices.. Which would lead one to believe that QCOM holds or is liscensed all valied IPR for 3G formats.
I don't agree with this. Just because QCOM has licensed their intellectual property rights for 3G to other companies does NOT mean they hold all of the essential IPR. For example, take IDCC's current licensing agreement with Nokia. Under the terms of the agreement, Nokia is able to use IDCC's IPR which intersect the CDMA200 platform. Does that mean IDCC holds all of the essential IPR for CDMA2000? Of course not. Quite honestly, several companies hold essential IPR for 3G, and they will all be responsible for licensing their own technology to the other companies that use their technology.
pcstel, 3G IPR issues are still confusing right now as the various players involved are still posturing and maneuvering to gain a competitive advantage. As we get closer to actual deployment of 3G networks, it should start to become clearer.
I hope this helped.
postyle |
