First, let me make one thing clear, I do not despise Corpgold but I do dislike the way he crafts his posts to be misleading. He talks in riddles, metaphors and implies many erroneous things without coming out and saying them directly. I'm sure you don't need me to provide examples to know what I'm talking about.
I also noticed he changed his SI handle from "Darrell Smith" to "D.J. Smyth". Interesting. I wonder why.
I'm surprised you say there is no evidence that the '94 Q/IDC agreement isn't limited to 2G technologies except for the 1X networks in Korea. I would add to that the 1X network in Japan and the 3 million 1X handsets that have already been sold, all with Qualcomm ASIC's inside. Do you think IDC would just sit there and play dumb if Qualcomm was openly violating the '94 agreement they signed with IDC? Do you think that agreement is not legally binding? I can't believe we are discussing this, most obvious, point yet again.
The article you provided an excerpt from is not an explanation of the belief that Qualcomm's patents were limited to 2G. All that article discusses is that IDC was developing a technology that was distinct from Qualcomm's. No mention of any weakness in Q's patents. While you may be correct that Corpgold didn't come out and say that Qualcomm's patents only apply to 2G he did beat around the bush a lot and implied those things without actually making such a silly claim (at least not publicly). This is from May of 1999, right after the ERICY/QCOM settlement:
ragingbull.lycos.com
The WCDMA branding is being incorporated along with the other two versions. IDC's IPR contributes to the wideband version, QCOM to the narrowband. It is implied in all I've read that the wideband version will be the most prolific worldwide.
Notice how Corpgold fails to note that Qualcomm's IPR is incorporated in all CDMA proposals, not just the narrowband ones. Now look at this one:
ragingbull.lycos.com
It's meaningless to have a market (in Q's case) but not have access to broadband architecture IPRs for low cost implimentation. IDC has this.
Here Corpgold implies (but does not say) that Q's patents don't apply to broadband architecture. But you are right, it was mostly other posters who constantly made the claim that QCOM was all about 2G CDMA, IDC was 3G.
I will leave you with some other words of wisdom from Corpgold for those who enjoy a periodic review. The link is above the quoted text.
ragingbull.lycos.com
It's Golden Bridge's technology in the WP-CDMA relationship which will repace Qualcom/Ericsson's technology. Golden Bridge is supplying the full physical layer for 3G. Qualcom/Erricsson's technology is closer to 2 - 2 1/2G given their inferior speed. That's probably why Qualcom/Ericsson are "stalling" as they know that AT&T, with Golden Bridge technology can go without Qualcom/Ericsson patents for 3G. A 3G standard is coming. IDC will play a part.
ragingbull.lycos.com
Qualcomm's CDMA is technically 2G (second generation - although they like to call it 3G) and does not have inherent video capabilities and certainly won't serve a 4G world (where the internet is heading).
The following was posted in 1999 regarding IDC ASIC:
ragingbull.lycos.com
Cle, you stated in an old post that once the ASIC is released it will need to undergo more testing prior to sale thus dragging it into year 2000. generally most of the testing is completed prior to sale. That's what they're doing now. So, once released, it's ready for sale. The release will be this year, so I've heard. It's supposedly a pretty hot product.
ragingbull.lycos.com
very few bought into QCOM's story in 91 and 92. the market got the picture though. IDC IPRs could be bigger than QCOM.
ragingbull.lycos.com
Per IDC's estimation, both CDMA and CDMA2000 are inferior to BCDMA operationally.
ragingbull.lycos.com
no, not CDMA, GSM 900/1800 TDMA which is convertabile to mobile WCDMA without extensive addtl. infrastrustructure. as for BCDMA being "years away" from mobility - it's more accurate to say "months". there is no giant technological leap left of which I'm aware that would prevent bcdma from being mobile other than politics (a significant leap). it does appear IDC is playing quiet with the subject for now.
ragingbull.lycos.com
with QCOM selling infrastructure and R&D to ERICY, IDC becomes one of the technological leaders
ragingbull.lycos.com
I was told today that the ERICY/QCOM deal is as bullish for IDC as it is for QCOM (even more if you follow the total IPR stream).
ragingbull.lycos.com
IDC has the only fully functional 3G system in operation which is handling voice, internet, and video - video being TV with proper spectrum allocation.
ragingbull.lycos.com
Bill, an interesting fact of IDC is that IDC and QCOM have cross-licensing of QCOM's CDMA patents, and QCOM of IDC's CDMA and BCDMA patents. Exact royalty payouts of the deal were not made public (i.e., if IDC uses QCOM's CDMA and vice versa), but, through this, Nokia has access to most of the necessary QCOM's IPRs for CDMA implimentation. If Nokia gets use of all the CDMA they need through IDC for a more cost effective deployment (i.e., royalty payout), then...
ragingbull.lycos.com
Jim, you're right. not sure why I put BCDMA in the post (it's on my mind). If Q uses BCDMA they pay.
ragingbull.lycos.com
Clearly you of all people must know that BCDMA is not a failure. When it's dead and gone, a failure. It ain't gone and it ain't dead. Samsung received an addtl. $100 million proposed order to impliment a broadband wireless CDMA system in Russia and some of it's satellites (in addt. to the order received last year).
ragingbull.lycos.com
bottom line for NOK (and others for that matter), is they're looking for ways around paying Q all the dough; cut their costs.
NOK has found applications in IDC's IPR base which will assist it in doing that not only for CDMA but also GPRS (this is not just a CDMA issue). I think we've all said that before though. IDC's deal is that their software (already mobile) and even ASIC applications are reconfigured for mobile to meet this challenge.
ragingbull.lycos.com
should state that IDC is not pursuing GPRS right now. although they may have too if GPRS becomes the step of choice to 3G. don't know why it would, though given NOK's statements that they can move directly to 3G from 2G and so on.
Bux |
