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: Bux who wrote (3656)	1/26/2000 11:42:00 AM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

yes. truth is only an element of conviction as viewed and developed through your own eyes. if you believe my comments to be unreasonable, so be it. until you can produce the actual test data, there is nothing concrete to discuss.

To: Bux who wrote (3656)	1/26/2000 11:52:00 AM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 5195

Bux, << Some parting thoughts >> I very much appreciate your efforts and probing questions and those of w, Lance, and Quincy, in trying to make some sense out of the potential investment opportunity in IDC. It is too bad that you and others have had to take a lot of flak for asking questions. I have been following IDC since JL stared posting about it on other telecom threads and the web site went up. Many investors seem to be hoping that IDC is the new Q. Perhaps it is, but I'm not convinced. Q is taking a bit of a beating today, and that is not unexpected. The earnings report and CC from Q yesterday reinforced my faith in my year + old LTB&H investment in Q. I continue to look for other wireless investments, but I'll continue to pass on this one for the moment. - Eric -

To: Bux who wrote (3656)	1/26/2000 12:14:00 PM
From: Jim Lurgio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

These were follow up posts. His posts brought this question. Please don't tell me that this guy by: bankscollinsrutherford 1/26/00 12:22 am Msg: 32131 of 32258 searched the patent database for "Qualcom" instead of "Qualcomm". Believe it or not, there are actually 8 patents issued for "Qualcom" (someone made a boo-boo). That may explain his gross error in calculating the number of patents he thinks were issued to Qualcomm. This was his response to the question bankscollinsrutherford by: renntech750 1/26/00 12:56 am Msg: 32136 of 32263 You're absolutely correct. This afternoon, as an after-thought, while going over IDC's patents, I entered Ericsson's and Qualcomm's names in the "assignee" field just to get a feel for numbers. Of course, I didn't realize at the time that I had made a spelling error. I realized then that there must have been an explanation. Perhaps, as in the case with IDC, there was a name change. Or, maybe Qualcomm formed a separate company for research. In any event, I am deeply apologetic for this careless oversight. During further research into their patents, this error would have manifested itself eventually. Perhaps this is a valuable lesson. We need to have quality, first-hand information where we can put our fingers on the evidence. This is what I am seeking. Renntech After his response another poster offered this Banks by: lem_75110 1/26/00 1:07 am Msg: 32142 of 32265 The patent search I used came up with actually 6 patents assigned to "Qualcom" and 362 patents assigned to "Qualcomm" in the same city for all years. Although the patents don't mean any thing to me, I find it interesting that the same probable assignee would be spelled differently.