Goodman and Myers on 3G IP
chapq,
<< The exclusion of patent quality in this analysis is important. I don't see any account taken of "underlying" patents anywhere. >>
At the end of an IP day the quality of an IP portfolio relates to the essential nature of the IP to the various technologies that are patented. A supplement to what I posted prior is here, and you and others can read what is stated in this report relative to that:
3gworldguide.com
[link furnished to me by Data_Rox elsewhere]
<< If what you're trying to figure is the $value of the components of the body of patents, >>
In posting the link I posted on this board I personally was not trying to "figure out" anything. This board exists simply as a possible resource for the benefit of any individuals that are interested in 3G Mobile Wireless, its proliferation, and issues attendant to that proliferation. The relationship of IP to open standards is an attendant issue. The link was posted because someone that participates here, lurks here, or does research here might find it of value.
This board is intended to be non-denominational and nonconfrontation. Hopefully that was articulated properly in the board header. [... and OBTW, I do very much appreciate your contributions here].
Personally, and as an investor in the communications equipment sector of tech (and my investments in that sector are clearly listed and kept current in my profile), I have pretty much sorted out what I personally feel I need to know about the commercial value and asset value of each company I am invested in, what IP they have and in what arenas, the challenges they face in licensing or cross-licensing the IP they have, and how that impacts their bottom line.
<< If what you're trying to figure is the $value of the components of the body of patents, add-ons to a viable pioneering effort as the standard continually develops should not be just counted as eQuivalent, right? >>
WRONG! [Excuse the shout, please]. Totally wrong not to mention somewhat misleading and naive, IMO.
The study I linked does not address one technology and the proprietary (open) standards that govern it. It addresses two technologies including a 2nd much more robust derivatrive technology that will be much more widely adopted and the open comittee-based standards that govern it, and you would be hard pressed to convince me that UMTS and the UTRAN which supports WCDMA and TD-CDMA/TD-SCDMA and the other access modes that will follow closely resembles the cdma2000 family.
Did your favorite company ... the one you most frequently post about here on SI, "pioneer" the commercialization of cdma in a mobile wireless environment? Yes they did. Moreover they have secured a substantial license and royalty base the technology they control and for derivatives they neither control or standardized.
However ...
... in closing this post to you, I do need to be absolutely candid. Your statement appears to be a subtle commercial for one of the most hyperbole driven companies on the face of the planet and one that indulges smoke and mirrors to a degree that few other large caps in their industry do -- most certainly to a considerably greater degree than any other company I am invested in does. I happen to hold a significant position in that company, and have for some time, but I do not genuflect at their altar [and you well know that by now <g>]. To the degree that the smoke and mirrors that company indulges in increases their valuation I'm selfishly all for it. To the degree they embarrass themselves (or you and me), I am embarrassed with them and for them.
What you call "eQuivalent" posts ... with a capital Q ... belong on this all cheerleading board created for our benefit but whose 1st rule and most violated rule is "NO CHEERLEADING,"
Subject 36035
Best,
- Eric - |
