"However, there are always holes in the coverage." I am confident Motorola, Lu, Samsung, ETRI, Nokia and Ericsson have been looking for those holes for many years now. Isn't it dangerous to assume they exist or are more useful than Qualcomm's original patents?
"Don't you think that the Europeans will be able to bypass the Q's patents too? It happened to the best of them."
(sorry for the length)
Actually, I don't. Even with a rudimentary understanding of CDMA, I don't think they will successfully bypass them. That really isn't unusual. Call it arrogance if you want. But, some of them are very simple and very elegant solutions to problems haunting CDMA since it was discovered.
Power control. Beautiful and simple concept. It's even useful in fast-fading situations.
My favorite non-electrical example is the pharmacutical market. How many lifesaving name-brand drugs have zero competition from generic equivalents? How else could they recoup the development costs if they didn't have IPR protection?
Are there special wireless kleptomaniac privs for the "better good of humanity"?
Phillips has a Qualcomm license that can be applied to 3G systems.
"If you read the paragraph before the claims, normally it states that modifications to this patent will be within the scope of the invention. Therefore, an artisan with ordinary skill would be able to change air interfaces as necessary."
Apparently, Qualcomm has experience with this "feature"
qualcomm.com
There are many patents covering the IS95 Air-air interface where putting the word "CDMA" in its text is simply unnecessary. Patent 5,764,687 and 5,757,767 merely mentions "spread spectrum". Isn't CDMA a "Spread Spectrum" modulation method? (plus I just realized the search site I use only has patent awarded in '97 and '98)
You are right, ETSI has made its choice. But, one hell of a choice it had to make to keep the TDCDMA camps and WCDMA camps from leaving them with ZERO decisions and ZERO standards to submit to ITU. Do you really think this collage will produce a better handset than IS95?
Qualcomm, based on market$ share, would have had ONE lone vote in deciding the standard for UMTS. Do you think I trust Ericsson and Nokia to make the right decision for both the consumers and the providers?
We will know which of the many standards is superior when they are compared in real-life conditions, side by side. As a consumer, I still win. Remember that WCDMA and CDMA2000 have two parts: switching and air-air interfaces. WCDMA can be compatible with IS41 equipment as it is currently accomodating D-AMPS. CDMA2000 will never be shut out of the GSM market because Qualcomm can put any air-air interface on GSM switching systems. They demonstrated this with IS95a and Vodaphone this spring.
Isn't this turning into a meaningless argument? ETSI officially announced it needs access to Qualcomm patents. Qualcomm actually appears to be looking out for my best interest as a consumer by desiring to be a part of the best standard, not just the EuroAsian standard.
If Ericsson could just ignore Qualcomm, by the same measure couldn't there be Percodan and Pravachol generic clones on the Pharmacy shelves by Christmas?
Is it in our best interest as consumers to allow this to happen?
I'm glad you like your AMPS/GSM handset. But, since I have CDMAOne coverage wherever I travel plus flat-rate roaming, don't you think that would be overkill for me?
Regarding your GSM/AMPS phone; do your phone calls reach you reliably when you are in analog? |
