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 (3653)	1/26/2000 10:56:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

I almost didn't finish reading Renntech's silly rant but when I got to this I almost burst my sides: God forbid that you should believe me if I told you that IDC has more than 160 US patents in wireless communications, and that Qualcom has had fewer than 18 issued to them since 1972 - even though this is a fact. Not much wiggle room there! Bux

To: Gus who wrote (3653)	1/26/2000 12:00:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Regarding Renetech and TDMA patents There are some interesting nuggets here. I'll get to them presently. That is to say, IDC was the first to patent a system for mobile or fixed wireless radios that converts an analog signal to digital, compresses the signal, merges the compressed signal with other compressed signals into a single transmit channel bit stream ..., etc. In other words, TDMA. Actually - no. The abstract quoted here doesn't describe TDMA. This casts doubt on whether Renetech knows what he is talking about. There again, I might be accused of being anal. Lets move on. Regarding the prior art.. One of these patents, which I believe was assigned to (or owned by) Motorola Bit imprecise for a patent attorney. He believes?? What does he know? Its a shame he didn't list all the prior art. so we could do our own DD. He might also have referenced the DARPA work on slotted ALOHA - a very early TDMA system from the late 60's. So, IDC invented TDMA. This is an outrageous conclusion, and is not supported by the preceding paragraphs. IDC combined aspects of two prior patents and were awarded a new patent. This in no way should be construed as inventing TDMA. A patent's validity can be challenged, and this is what MOT decided to do. In the end, the jury was persuaded that, in light of the additional prior art presented by Motorola, IDC's core patents were invalid, i.e. IDC did not invent TDMA Most legal scholars familiar with this case - and no doubt Motorola, as well, but don't expect them to admit it - view the jury's decision as a miscarriage of justice. IDC's attorneys appeared to have made some procedural errors during trial that limited their ability to effect a favorable appeal. The opinion of legal scholars is irrelevent as the case has been tried. At least MOT is off the hook for royalties, and this in part explains why IDC doesn't receive substantial royalties. Moving onto Markham Ericsson challenged IDC, as well, hoping to use the results of the Motorola decision to their favor. And the Jury is still out. The bottom line. The current ERICY case revolves around a patent which is claimed to repr sent a core TDMA invention. IDC lost an equivalent case against MOT, who successfully demonstrated prior art. (renentechs opinions regarding the views of legal scholars are irrelelvent) It would be interesting for a qualified Telecomm engineer to review the MOT case to assess the potential outcome of the ERICY case. Anyone out there care to publish a synopsis? In my opinion, as a proffesional telecom engineer, there IS sufficient prior art to cast serious doubt on IDC'c claim to have 'invemted' TDMA. Good luck to IDC longs. You will need it if the ERICY case goes against you. w.