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: Gus who wrote (3454)	1/20/2000 10:37:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

What points? You haven't made one substantive point in the time that you have been here other than to declare openly you irrational hatred for IDC. You're a waste of time because you keep on substituting the stock price of QCOM for the facts on the ground in wireless. I'll repost the rebuttals I wrote in response to various claims on this thread. Apparently you apparently feel these rebuttals are not substantive but you fail to explain why. "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?" "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." "That's wrong-headed thinking." (To think that the GSM to CDMA interface IPR will be more valuable than the CDMA building blocks IPR) "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." "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?" "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?" "When one digs a little deeper one question that comes to mind is why would the big and powerful Nokia write off any interest in the IPR that comes out of this relationship? IPR is normally the tangible asset that comes out of a R&D expenditure." "Just how long do you think investors will hang around and wait for IDC revenues to materialize? Why aren't analysts willing to cover this company? When will the revenue stream become visible? If I ever invest in IDC, these questions will need answers." The above quotes are examples of points I have made in an effort to honestly discuss the issues that will be facing investors as they analyze the wireless segment. Contrary to your claims, I have not declared "hatred for IDC" and I have not "substituted the stock price of QCOM for the facts". I haven't even mentioned QCOM share prices. Why do you prefer false charges over rational discussion of the investment prospects for IDC? Bux