Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott Zion who wrote (2136)	10/10/1999 12:22:00 PM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 13582

Scott-extremely interesting article. Would appreciate engineer's, Clark's or Bux's take on this. All: my relatively un-technologically informed understanding of ITU and 3G is as follows (use of terms may be slightly off <g>): 1. Q gets royalties on all 3 flavors of 3G, whether 1XRT, 2XRT, W-CDMA, TDMA. 2. This is regardless of the data-enhancing transmission of EDGE (for TDMA) or GPRS (GSM/W-CDMA). Engineer, if you could: what is the relationship between EDGE and GPRS and the CDMA RF interface, i.e., if CDMA= transmission of coded packets of data that are routed and selected by the handset or basestation ASIC according to the code identifier? Is this an overlay on an underlying GSM/GPRS or TDMA/EDGE interface or software protocol? 3. 3G, as such, is meant to refer to enhanced data and enhanced speed of that data transmission. Thus, W-CDMA or TDMA 3G, if they truly exist, are different radio media of transmission to accomplish this, and if CDMA interface is the medium, then Q's IPR is relevant. 4. When ERICY capitulated, Gregg wrote, and it was generally believed, that point #1 above would result. It was never clear to me why ERICY's contractual deal with Q on the patent litigation and the infra would necessarily bind other GSM vendors/carriers, such as NOK and in Euroland the GSM carriers or TDMA. Plus, the lingering question whether ITU principles on non-discriminatory, non-monopolitic terms for licensing would, at the end of the day, pose a problem. Recall that a number of us on the old thread were noting the possibility of litigation in Europe on use of CDMA air interface. 5. Why have we heard nothing from ETSI recently. Did it's leverage on resisting use of CDMA-based interface in Europe cave when ERICY caved? Regards. Steve