Postyle, you are correct, the question was meant for you. I was in a bit of a rush this morning, sorry ML for the confusion.
Anyway, I do think the question is valid. Who was the first person to claim Qualcomm's patents only applied to 2G when, in fact, there has never been any evidence that this was the case? It appears that story was fabricated at some point during Qualcomm's meteoric rise in an effort to portray IDC as the next Qualcomm and pump up IDC's share price. You can bet those pumpers were selling their shares during those heady days surrounding the pinnacle of IDC share prices to the very people who believed Q's patents didn't extend to 3G.
Postyle, I ask you who first started the belief that Q's patents were limited to 2G because I know you have followed the IDC story for a long time and are familiar with the various personalities of those who have hyped this stock. I have also followed IDC for a number of years now because I suspect there is more here than meets the eye. I'm talking about a potential stock manipulation scheme.
To the best of my recollection, it was Corpgold who first claimed Q's patents were mostly limited to 2G. Others then jumped in and spread it as gospel. This is what the IDC hype site, telecomtechstocks.com, has to say about Corpgold:
telecomtechstocks.com
Darrell Smith is extraordinarily well qualified to respond to the Green briefing. Smith holds a graduate degree in the science and technology at the heart of wireless telecommunications. He is employed full time by a large national investment firm to advise them on investments related to telecommunications technology. He follows InterDigital more closely than any other analyst. Smith goes far beyond the superficial, maintaining contacts with the scientists and engineers who are involved on a day to day basis with cutting edge telecommunications engineering. He also stays in touch with committee members and officials responsible for setting international standards for wireless telecommunications and with his peers who are professionals in analyzing technology companies for their respective investment firms. Darrell's reports to his employer are not available to the public, but he generously shares his insights frequently via e-mails and message boards, where he is also known as "Corpgold." The firm that employs Darrell Smith full time has been bullish on InterDigital since last Fall, when it was not a popular position.
I wonder what firm this is that employs Corpgold full-time? He sure seems to post a lot during normal work hours to be employed "full-time". Could posting be part of his job? Are we looking at a full-blown pump and dump? Is it Heartland Advisors who employ Corpgold? Why is it a secret? Do they buy when he gives the signal thus kicking off an increase in share prices sufficient to attract the momentum players while Heartland then begins to sell off their extra shares at the expense of those who enter late?
Let's look at who continues to propogate these damaging myths. I have requested numerous times that Bill Dalglish correct these myths that exist on his hype site but he prefers to continue misleading new investors.
telecomtechstocks.com
But, according to telecom tech investment expert Darrell Smith (aka "Corpgold" on some message boards), the agreement does not provide for Qualcomm's transfer of InterDigital's patented technology in third generation use.
I pointed out over a year ago that there is nothing preventing Qualcomm from using the 1994 agreement with 3G technologies and have asked for evidence that this is not true. Now that we know the agreement can also cover 3G technologies you would expect Bill would edit his hype site for accuracy. After all, some people are actually buying IDC based upon erroneous info found on telecomtechstocks.com but Bill doesn't seem to care as he continues to mislead new investors.
While Bill has done much to damage the credibility of IDC, it appears that Corpgold was the first one to actually start much of the misinformation that is still floating around today. In fact, I challenge anyone to find a single report that claims QCOM's IPR is limited to 2G that pre-dates those claims of Corpgold. In this context, "IPR" refers to either QCOM's homegrown IPR or that which was purchased from others (whether or not that IPR is actually used).
If no one can come up with a claim that pre-dates Corp, we will be left no choice but to assume that Corp was the initiator of this erroneous view that has no supporting evidence. Then you can put 2 and 2 together and realize why he spent his time spreading the erroneous info. I wonder how many millions of dollars in losses his "gospel" has caused untold thousands of individual investors.
Bux |
