If a white paper is supposed to be a definitve look at a given subject, this might qualify as the worst ever written. It is clearly written directly at Qualcomm and supporters of cdma2000. It contains more assertions and unsubstantiated claims than a Clinton State of the Union address.
BTW, this is why everyone hates ERICY. The stuff they are putting out there as fact is such bull, that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the subject (like myself) can nuke their "white paper".
This is long, and there are lots mroe qualified to offer opinions on this paper, certainly, but this thing actually made me mad, so here I go:
Most of this doesn't matter anyway. The fundamental question, regardless of the merits, support, popularity, ease of use, capacity, performance, hinges on whether W-CDMA uses Q's IPR or not. The fact that ETSI says that it does takes just a little of the thunder away from ERICY's claims.
The article begins by saying that "WCDMA is a completely new concept. It is not related to nor limited to any 2G wireless technology."
This is crap, unless you think that data transmision over wireless is a "completely new". This same paper goes on later to talk about how WCDMA came from "years of research" beginning in the "early '90s. Also that "many companies" participated in it's development. A "completely new" concept that's been around for nearly a decade?
The fact that ERICY is already defensive about its relationship to a 2G standard (hmmm, which one?) belies the intent and direction of the rest of the paper.
"W-CDMA is the only standard to garner truly global support."
Only in a globe that doesn't include the US, Japan, Korea, and most of Latin America. The global support, as demonstrated by the endorsement of ETSI, is an absurd argument. Especially when Qualcomm wasn't even allowed to present to ETSI to begin with.
"A regionally based standard like cdma2000 should have a place..."
How magnanimous of them to acknowledge the existence of C2k and the fact that it has the right to exist.
"Free of any 2G constraints, W-CDMA offers a superior technical solution and one better attuned to the 3G needs of the global community."
Bold assertion. While I'm not an engineer, my reading of other engineers on this thread tells me that, at least, there is significant debate about the superiority of WCDMA v. C2k. Recent announcements this week about transmission speeds of 1.5mbps by Qualcomm indicate that there is much more to this portion of the debate than otehrwise noted. W-CDMA does offer a superior technical solution to 2G systems. The paper is attempting to imply that cdmaOne and by extension C2k are somehow constrained and that W-CDMA unfetters the potential of 3G wireless. The performance and capacity issues are still being debated, and ERICY's glib dismissal of and claim of victory over C2k is unsubstantiated and rings very hollow.
"WCDMA is equally fair to all 2G standards around the world."
Except to any that require backwards compatibility to IS-95. And funny, the preceding paragraph says that early research demonstrated that it would not be possible to maintain backward compatibility. Presumably, to ANY standard.
ERICY goes on to make a statement that they may have patents and/or pending patents which would prevent Q from implementing C2k systems, and offer to trade these, more or less straight across, for Q's patents. This was the crux of what I was denying in my earlier post - the ERICY has any IPR that Qualcomm needs.
WHY MAKE AN OFFER TO TRADE YOUR PATENTS IF YOU DON'T NEED THE PATENTS YOU WOULD BE TRADING FOR?
ERICY goes on to say that it supports a "low royalty compensation approach" ostensibly for the benefit of the growth of worldwide wireless.
Wow, what a big hearted company. Giving away essential IPR and asking for very little in return. If I were a shareholder of ERICY, I would be rather upset at management's deicsion to ask for a "low" royalty compensation for the fruits of the years of research, billions of dollars, hours of energy, and the risk associated with the tremendous chance they took in developing such a "revolutionary" standard. The fact that they only want a pittance of royalty for such a marvelous, ingenious, invention, so as to benefit the growth of global 3G wireless, would cause me to question whether I whether I owned a business trying to maxmize their position or were in the business of charity. And the fact that they would trade these same properties for others they have no need for to a competitor and sworn enemy would cause me serious concern.
Instead I'm glad to be invested in a company that knows the value of the property it owns, and the concomitant benefit it will provide to me and my clients in exchange for some of our hard-earned capital. God bless Qualcomm in their righteous fight for well-deserved compensation for the technolgy that will be the basis for global wireless explosion.
Do you really think that Ericsson et al are so concerned about the future of Qualcomm that they want to include them for altruistic purposes? If they didn't need the property, they wouldn't even acknowledge Q's existence. This white paper goes to show how defensive they really are, and how badly they need the Q.
$80 BY 10/31.
Regards,
mmeggs |
