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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yak-attack who wrote (3101)	1/4/2000 9:23:00 PM
From: Tom Hua	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Even Gilder says there patents are BS, YA, IDC has many patents, some are no doubt BS, but all you need are a few really good ones. Regards, Tom

To: Yak-attack who wrote (3101)	1/5/2000 12:49:00 AM
From: Techplayer	Respond to of 5195

Yak, Gilder does not have the in depth knowledge of IDC's patents necessary to make that statement. as a matter of fact, those comments were made 8 months ago BEFORE the patents were held up in the US and European courts. Brian

To: Yak-attack who wrote (3101)	1/6/2000 5:28:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (10) \| Respond to of 5195

<Even Gilder says there patents are BS>. no, he didn't say IDC's patents were BS, he said TDMA is BS. He said that as recently as his new newsletter. IDC controls 75% of the TDMA patents which were considered "essential" to establishing IS54, IS54B, IS156 (U.S.), PDC (Japan), and GSM (Europe), all TDMA standards. When IDC wins its fight with ERICY, nearly 80% of the current non-compliant TDMA adherents worldwide will be forced into settling. When was the last time you spoke to those close to the ERICY/IDC fight to determine how well IDC's patents fit into this equation - or what IDC's chances were of winning? I'm not talking about speaking only with ERICY as 99.9% of all analysts have done, I'm talking about the legal eagles involved? Did you bother to read the MOT trial transcripts and determine why IDC's case came to a stalemate there? Gilder freely admits that he hasn't followed IDC for several years; nor has he willfully kept fully abreast (at least he doesn't admit such) of new developments in the TDMA world (why should he when he has fully determined CDMA is superior in nearly all respects?). Gilder has been consistent in his belief that TDMA will lose in the long run. Nevertheless, TDMA still currently controls 85% of the digital world (GSM and PDC are both TDMA brands). IDC originally developed this technology. They were never properly paid, first by MOT, then by ERICY, the two large players (NOK settled with IDC on this account in exchange for IDC's assistance with them in developing 3g IPR blocks). Gilder also stated that Latin America would become the CDMA capital of the world - yet Latin America is becoming another TDMA hotspot - 75% of Latin America has gone TDMA in the last two years. Latin America had every opportunity to move from analog to CDMA but chose TDMA instead. If a country can only afford a volkswagen (TDMA), they're not going to rent into a cadillac (CDMA). A Volks may not hold as many people as a Cad, but they keep improving on those volks to the point where they get you where you're going and just as fast. TDMA designs relative to MOS scores (voice quality) is now nearly equal to CDMA, the differences being undetectable to the human ear. TDMA (through GSM) is able to claim 15 to 20 persons per channel now (Hughes uses ETDMA for about 12 to 15 per channel - ETDMA is considered a hierarchical time division, or two dimensional duplexing if you will). TDMA, under 3g auspices, has been tested with Division Duplexing at wirelessly sending data 10mbps - about 5X faster than HDR (on a fixed basis). Time Division Duplexing (TDD) is also one of the third generation standards. If you want more information on TDMA, I suggest you call the UWCC.org and they will give an updated comparison of TDMA and CDMA designs. We also find NEC dropping all North American CDMA designs and going fully with TDMA. NEC is a full paying mameber of the IDC IPR team. Why would NEC do this? Would you say that NEC's engineers are just a bunch of BSers too? Who would call AT&T's engineers a bunch of BSers since they've gone 100% TDMA and pledged to stay that way? AT&T, by the way, is a licensee of IDC and said to be currently negotiating for 3g operatives. Why is that ADI is developing their Orthello chip set only for GSM based phones, which they say will move to a tune of 320 million phones this year? Would you say that ADI is simply being opportunistic, or do they make more money on a GSM chipset vs. CDMA set? This chipset will cut the cost of GSM based phones in 1/2 and give ADI about $6 per set sold in revenue. Would you say that ADI's engineers are a bunch of BSers too? Anyway. All the analysts believe the world is eventually going CDMA due to its ability to handle voice in a bursty, mobile environment (world population increases may demand it), including IDC. Yet TDMA still costs less for operators to impliment, although the huge gap that once was there is closing, TDMA costs are dropping as well. Look at the recent Nokia/Lucent announcement regarding TDMA 3g testing. It is IDC's TDMA backbone upon which this system is running. IDC has been paid nearly $280 million now for TDMA upfront licensing fees for these BS patents. They're also compensated on a per phone per infrastructure basis. Once the upfront fees are eaten through, per phone fees apply. Because of this licensing renewals to IDC will jump over 1800% this year from last and increase in said multiples thereafter. Yet, these same BS TDMA patents, to which you refer, represent less than 1/2 of IDC's total patent portfolio. The other, greater 1/2, are CDMA based patents, both broadband and narrowband applicalbe - over 500 of them worldwide. The opening of IDC's office in Japan was company specific. NTT is going 3g now. They want to compete against the CDMAOne systems of DDI and DDO to which they feel understandably threatened. The faster that NTT moves 3g, the better. There are many suppliers to NTT's 3g systems - all of which need to license IDC's broadband backbone IPRs. IDC did not move to Japan to throw a party in Nokia's favor for a one month date. Their man in Japan is (is Japanese) and among the most respected in the telecom world in Asia. He's also handsomely paid for his efforts. It was through his and Goldberg's efforts that IDC received the $280 million in TDMA fees since the early 1990s. And he's still around; an expert in both CDMA and TDMA designs; a professorial type if you will; and has become a well respected negotiator. You can bet if NTT signed the IDC pact, they also ackowledged/pledged TDMA PDC design awards to IDC; something they've resisted for several years (their suppliers did not so resist - NEC, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Japan Radio, etc. all signed TDMA pacts with IDC). You can be short if you want based on your charting. But, I doubt that you have any idea what you're talking about in reference to IDC's technology or future. IDC's current AMEX specialist was fired for taking a wrong position in IDC at the wrong time. He was helping hold back IDC's stock for a long time. He's gone. We hear the Nasdaq is substantive possibility.