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: w molloy who wrote (3675)	1/27/2000 5:37:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

i believe Renetech(?) would agree with this evaluation regarding IDC patent claims: ragingbull.com norfolk, all: about the article on Qcom: "And what they're discovering today is that as a one-product company ? albeit a high-margin one ? Qualcomm will be subject to the industry's violent cycles just like any chip company. That doesn't dim the stock's long-term prospects. But it will take the market some getting used to." obviously, Qcom is NOT a one product company; but 95% of it's revenue is generated from one product - CDMA. what I continue to like about IDC is it's patent portfolio diversification. IDC IS MUCH MORE BROADLY DIVERSIFIED RELATIVE TO TDMA AND CDMA. it would be a completely different picture now had IDC's attorneys actually understood TDMA in the MOT trial and were able to cross examine Cox. The market would be saying IDC this, IDC that. If Motorola had the forsight, both IDC and MOT could have combined forces (much the same way that Nokia and IDC are doing now...hmmm) and controlled the TDMA format worldwide - including Europe's GSM platform. Motorola shot themselves in the foot on purpose; as a result ERICY bullied their way into the picture doing just about everything by way of stealing technologies. Nokia is not going to make the same mistake as Motorola. They clearly understand IDC's IPR position in the market. I was speaking to a former CEO of IDC the other day. He finally broke down aND stated that, yes, all carriers would need to sign with IDC for 3g buildout. He stated it was his hope that IDC would negotiate a reasonable rate of payment for their IPR. The difference, then, between IDC being the world digital hero and the $2 billion question (in the mind of WallStreet - Rahm is an obvious indication that many do not understand what is happening) is the Motorola Trial. Has ANYTHING changed from the trial relative to IDC's patents? No. Possibly shareholders do not realize that the "window" left open for IDC in the MOT trial was large enough for IDC to receive patent revalidation ON THE ENTIRE TDMA SYSTEM. There was little left out of the validation. That is why ERICY called the validation process "fraud". Judge Sanders denied ERICY's motions in this regard; which essentially means that the Markman Specialist must decide the case on the basis of the patents themselves and the expert witness called before him. The US patent office decided, basically, in IDC's favor. IDC's attorney met daily with the patent office in reviewing IDC's patents; and per the court order denying ERICY's "fraud" motion, Judge Sanders ruled that the patent office had access to ALL the "a priori" information before it - and came to a valid and non-fraudulent decision. How can the specialist condlude otherwise now? The US Patent office as validated the patents (THE ENTIRE TDMA SYSTEM), the GERMAN COURT ruled in IDC's favor on the SAME PATENTS, and the SWEDISH PATENT OFFICE ruled in IDC's favor and against a motion by ERICY to have them thrown out. How in the world can the markman conclude otherwise than to conclude that the TDMA patents are valid? We know they are valid - did ERICY infringe? If the markman concludes that IDC's TDMA claims ARE VALID, THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IS DID ERICY USE A TDMA SYSTEM? Obviously ERICY used a TDMA system. Was it IDC's? Yes - IDC's claim is that they invented the basic constructs of TDMA - ERICY was using these same basic constructs. At the Motorola trial it wasn't a question of whether Motorola was utilizing the SAME system that IDC was using (Motorola admitted they were using the SAME system) - the question was prior art - who owned the system first! The jury ruled in favor of Motorola on several claims - the judge threw out some of the jury's ruling - but left open the door on other claims involving modulation. But leaving this door open was like saying to IDC, "You don't own the house, but you do own the FOUNDATION TO IT AND THE WOOD BOARDS ON WHICH THE HOUSE IS BUILT!" What the patent revalidation did for IDC was DETERMINE THAT THEY DAMN WELL NOT ONLY OWNED THE FOUNDATION, BUT THEY OWNED THE HOUSE TOO. THE NEXT QUESTION THEN IS, DID ERICY USE A TDMA SYSTEM? Obviously, yes, they sell them every day.