Interdigital Communication(IDCC) 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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC)

IDCC 368.19

+0.9%

1:15 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bux who wrote (4630)	11/27/2000 10:01:42 AM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (1) of 5195

Bux. I suggest that if you have a problem with your research that you contact IDCC directly regarding this matter. You appear to want justification for a postion which holds little bearing on whether IDCC succeeds or not. Qualcomm's CDMA2000 remains a secondary choice among 3g standards. Why are you arguing with the wind? Call IDCC and discuss the matter with them since you remain consistently confused on this issue. Plain English is clear. CDMA2000 did not exist when the 94 agreement was put into place. I've posted my position in this matter many times. I will not post it again. This argument is meaningless relative to IDCC's ultimate success. CDMA2000 would need to be successful in order for IDCC to be successful in this regard. It is IDCC's continued contention (not mine) that additional agreements with Qualcomm are necessary for the licensing efforts and build of CDMA2000. You can only get around this claim by calling IDCC a "liar". Calling them and me names does not and will not change what is happening in the ITU standards process. Again, I suggest that if you have a problem with this reasoning that you call IDCC direct and discuss it with them. The patents covered in the 94 agreement are not the essential patents to which IDCC is referring when they discuss essentiallity for CDMA2000 and WCDMA. Again. If you have a problem with this reasoning, I suggest you contact IDCC direct. It is my understanding that you've never contacted IDCC; or as you claim, they've not returned calls - a claim in itself which is incredulous since they've always returned calls to me and those I know. You appear to have a desire to argue notions with no basis in IDCC's future. If you want to discuss IDCC's future discuss their relationship with Nokia, their WCDMA applications, TDD applications, current renewals, future renewals and current management. Time will prove everything. You're consistent arguments regarding IDCC and CDMA2000 are based on your personal understanding of an issue which includes none of IDCC's current essential property.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next