Daniel, here is an example:
"Any additional demands of changes to the standard after the decisions have been made are simply out of order. Furthermore, to link such demands to IPR would - in the tradition of standardization and in the spirit of creating an open global standard - be blatantly counterproductive to the interests of the entire wireless industry."
The 'tradition of standardization', the 'spirit of an open global standard', 'blatantly counterproductive to the great collective'. This is language of confiscation of individual property and theft. This is not about some entire wireless industry. There is no such entity. There is only a collection of individuals, companies and states. These sweeping statements of all for one and one for all are very suspicious.
When they say the entire wireless industry, they are not quite accurate. Qualcomm owns the IPR and does not see their interests as matching the entire wireless industry. So, should Ericsson and the entire wireless industry steal the IPR using their political mates? This is the question. Since the USA has some muscle and Qualcomm's interests and the USA state's are parallel, I don't think this will happen.
Before we discuss vaporware, it seems we would need a definition. I'm confident of 3G-W-CDMA-VW-UMTS-YETIS fitting my definition of vaporware. No point arguing unless we have the definition of the words we use agreed. Vaporware doesn't yet exist. I guess you'd agree on that. Vaporware is used to persuade people to defer to the 'soon arriving' software. Yes? I think it should also be of questionable technical merit to give it the pejorative flavor associated with the normal use of the word vaporware.
3G-W-CDMA-VW doesn't exist yet, either in YETI or any other form. Yes? I know there is a lab demo model, but that is hardly 'existing' especially since it includes Qualcomm's IPR. Intent is hard to prove, but given the position of Ericsson and their earlier attempts to stop CDMA, it would be naive to think they were not building a bandwagon of GSM based interests to get Qualcomm and the cdmaOne world to defer to them and to persuade their GSM customers to go on buying up large on GSM. Still okay or did we lose you there? Since Qualcomm has a rock solid IPR position on cdmaOne and cdma2000 as evidenced by all the signatories who have agreed to buy the rights and there has been legal challenge over half a decade, it seems that the 3G-W-CDMA-VW-... technical merit is also questionable.
I consider Ericsson and collective theft immoral. Perhaps you don't.
Maurice
**OT** Virtuous investments follow virtuous self, not the reverse. A manifestation of a person's values is their investment behavior. I am more virtuous than most people. Maybe you consider that arrogant. Suit yourself. I know it is very fashionable to avoid the taint of naive goody goodyness, morality and being virtuous. Personally, I like virtuous. Since I make a deliberate effort to be virtuous, and I look around and see most people aren't so enamoured of the idea, it is a very simple and unworthy boast to make. However I wouldn't want to appear before the court of saintliness, being not a world champion.
[I was going to leave, but you tempted me back! The normal course of events is to now refute my arguments by a list of my personal defects, some invective followed by some expletives and invitations to ---- away. That should show 3G-W-CDMA-VW is the real thing and Ericsson is a good, saintly, non-confiscatory, collective.] |
