Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) 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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM)

QCOM 174.35

-0.4%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Kent Rattey who wrote (88718)	12/4/2000 9:05:05 AM
From: Rajala	Read Replies (3) of 152472

<The basic CDMA patent IS the same however QCT was <clever in tieing alot of "support" function patents <to CDMA2000 that do not apply to WCDMA> As my German friend says: "vat ish all sthis silliness?". There is no "basic CDMA patent". It does not exist. CDMA was not Q´s innovation. CDMA1 and CDMA2000 are Q´s babies, WCDMA is not. Any talk of similar IPR revenues out of CDMA2000 and WCDMA are rubbish. In some level yes, such as if you use out pat. no. 123456789 you pay the same in both systems. But the thing is, in the other system you don´t need that patent. When the WCDMA was created Q should have played ball. But, quite the contrary, they did their very best in irritating the others. So they responded by willfully writing Q`s IPR in the standard? The conceptual skills are obviously not the strong point of many writing on this thread, but still: what are the chances for that? Rack your brain. - rajala

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next