Clark:
Our disagreement is modest, but one of degree, timing and interpretation. It is my perspective that the ITU examined the relative IPR positions and is charged with determining, based on the representations of Ericsson, Qualcomm and others, whether there a reasonable basis to confirm a new standard, i.e. W-CDMA. Were the IPR issues minor, i.e. were Qualcomm's IPR position predicated on just a few patents or a limited body of technology, I believe that the ITU could have, and would have, moved forward with the standard on a provisional basis. Keep in mind that Ericsson's position has been that it does not need QC's IPR AT ALL...so I perceive the lack of congruence between Ericsson's public position and the ITU response to be more substantive then you had suggested in a prior post.
I agree that Ericsson's "concession" is form over substance...but it is certain ERICY did not just discover the issue to which you refer this Tuesday. So, to my thinking, the chip rate adjustment is a political negotiating ploy rather than a technology statement. Ericsson is trying to characterize itself in a pragmatic and conciliatory fashion so that the ITU will defer judgment on the W-CDMA issue (and therefore afford the company more bargaining room and negotiating time).
Reasonable people can disagree...and I respect your technical expertise and analysis. But I believe that a confluence of political issues and customer concerns is driving Ericsson's new strategy, while the specific flaw that you allude to is an incidental footnote to the process.
Best regards,
Gregg |
