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: Jim Lurgio who wrote (3439)	1/19/2000 9:40:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Just what makes you think that IDC wants or should get royalties from Qualcomm? You're reading to many posts. IDC doesn't claim they say they have patents they stated they have patents that are essential for all of the 5 standards. Although they say these patents are essential that still doesn?t mean anyone must use them. You are not being logical here. First you say IDC claims to have patents essential to all 5 standards. Then you say Qualcomm doesn't need to pay royalties because they don't need to use them? Have you forgotten that Qualcomm designed CDMA2000 to be a successor to IS-95 and that they design and sell chips to support the standards they develop? Qualcomm says they haven't infringed upon IDC's patents in their design of CDMA2000, IDC say's they have. What could be more clear? The only way IDC is going to get royalties from Qualcomm is if Qualcomm changes their mind about IDC's IPR which they don't have a history of doing or if IDC successfully sues Qualcomm which I wouldn't want to bet on. The new 3-G standards are supposed to allow what they called cherry picking of patents. Therefore anyone who is interested in say CDMA2000 can choose to use any of the patents that the ITU has approved for that standard. Patents that received approval for use in any standard must also be free of any IPR dispute. Since when did the ITU start "approving" patents? It is my understanding that the ITU distances itself from the patent issue with the sole exception that if there is an IPR dispute then they cannot approve a standard that includes that disputed IPR. Of course this is a grey area since often the dispute is whether a standard infringes upon a patent or not. So if Qualcomm disputes IDC's IPR, I think that could be a problem. Having said that then lets assume someone wants to build this CDMA2000 system. After reviewing the patents available lets say they use 8 of Qualcomm's and two of IDC's. Q or IDC would owe each other nothing and the fees would come from the builder of the system. I do agree that Qualcomm most likely has a complete offering for CDMA 2000 but any company that has a legitimate patent that?s approved by the ITU for that standard is to be considered competition. Again, you are not making much sense. Here you say Qualcomm probably "has a complete offering for CDMA2000" but on the otherhand you appear to believe IDC when they claim essential IPR for all 5 standards. Well, which is it? Your thinking is too simplistic when you describe how Qualcomm and IDC will owe each other nothing, that the builder of the system will pay the respective parties. So Qualcomm can't continue to manufacture ASICS for their cutting edge technology or if they do they won't pay IDC? I thought IDC wanted to sell their essential IPR. Can you try to present your beliefs in a way that can be understood? It's as if you have forgotten the key distinction between IDC and Qualcomm. IDC makes nothing looking forward but Qualcomm is a key provider of cutting edge ASICS for phones, base stations and CDMA test equipment. Qualcomm also develops and tests the standards that their chips are based upon. Qualcomm is leading the CDMA revolution while IDC is chiming in and saying "hey, we invented that too." If IDC actually does have IPR that Qualcomm needs to implement the type of leading systems they need to to maintain their lead in CDMA then Qualcomm will need to come to a royalty agreement with IDC. The trouble for IDC is that Qualcomm is in the drivers seat during any negotiations with IDC because Qualcomm owns the basic building blocks for any CDMA, wide or narrow. To say that the ITU will manage and bundle IPR is just wrong since that would require the approval of those who hold the IPR and I doubt Qualcomm would release their IPR under such terms. The ITU doesn't have the legal authority to flex their muscles in that way. The interface between GSM/TDMA will be the most lucrative IPR involved and many feel IDC has that interface. That's wrong-headed thinking. There are many ways to interface GSM networks to a 3G CDMA air-interface since it is just packets of data from the packet-based air-interface to the switches. Much more lucrative are the Q patents that allow CDMA to work in a mobile environment. And I might add that it doesn't matter if it is wide or narrow, Q has a lock on the patents that make it possible. By the way I thought it was and excellent idea for the Q to dump both their infrastructure business as well as the handset division. Not because they were both failures but because companies that don't manufacture will get higher royalties according to the ITU standards for 3-G. Once again, the ITU doesn't set royalty rates, the owners of the IPR have that discretion. What makes you think the ITU has this authority? Bux