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 (3757)	2/5/2000 4:01:00 AM
From: Lance Bredvold	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

1997 was the ultimate year for "ultraphone" sales. Got up to sales of $44mm for this TDMA wireless local loop system. They had never made money on these fixed wireless systems apparently and by March of 98 were discontinuing plans for any additional ultraphone development. Instead IDC was seeking partners to help develop a CDMA WLL system which was going to spread the signal over 7-15 mhz at 3.5 to 5 mhz intervals. This in contrast to the 1-5 Mhz spreads of other systems per their 97 annual filing. At this point it has the name B-CDMA and is called True Link and it is to be launched in March of 98 for field trials during 98. Also mention the possibility that this system may in the future evolve into some mobile CDMA uses. On a slightly different subject, part of the deal when Samsung and Alcatel Espana became partners, part of their license fee went to reduce Siemen's total obligation. But then Siemens allowed the newcomers to have nonexclusive licenses also. I have read later 10K's and 10Q's and just assumed that eventually B-CDMA (True Link) got involved in mobile wireless, but up till 3-98 they are still just thinking maybe someday it will apply. I also believe I remember reading that True Link WLL was more or less abandoned after only one year. So I guess for the last 12 or thirteen months, the emphasis has been on W-CDMA. Of course, that is in 5mhz channels as far as I know just as CDMA 2000 is so I have no idea where the broader distinction comes from except that 7-15mhz mentioned above for WLL. I don't suppose I'm telling you anything you don't already know, but I needed to commit it to paper for my own understanding. Lance

To: w molloy who wrote (3757)	2/5/2000 10:15:00 AM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Molly "Darrell figures claim approx 6% royalty rate ($3.13 on a $55 BOM 'phone) based on the $300 million licensing revenue. That makes it easy to pro-rate the per 'phone figure, if one accepts the 12% (IDC revenue came from 12% of TDMA sales) and 800million total 'phone sales" the 6% is wrong (even if $3 is 6% of $55 - that $3 "per phone" must be broken down to figures relative to licensing revenue derived from intial infrastructure buildout, reocurring revenue per new buildout, and reocurring revenue per phone). the $3 per phone was, and is, an average combining all revenue sources from tdma to date. reletive to future revenue received per phone, without additional cell structuring, this number would not be correct. that is not to say that i don't know what the average number is per phone. that's something you'll need to work out yourself, I guess. i gave those numbers as a general guide.

To: w molloy who wrote (3757)	2/5/2000 11:30:00 AM
From: Jim Lurgio	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Molly, I gave you a total of 275 million in licensing revenues plus I had a few I couldn't remember. Is that so far from 300 million? I don't think Darrell should be put on the cross for not having an exact figure. Lance was right too about IDC refunding some revenues to Siemens. IDC refunded 5 million to Siemens so Samsung could join the consortium so take another 5 million off my figure. Speaking of exact I did provide evidence that recurring revenues were exactly 2.9 million for the 3rd Q and I noticed you never mentioned I was correct. Finally if you can't realize that the lumpy licensing revenues are caused by the ERICY versus IDC suit your missing a lot. There are many and I mean many companies that are waiting on the results of this very important case. Just look at the value that came to the Q when they humbled ERICY. Consider the fact that this case started in 1993 waited for the Mot case and is now coming to a head. Considering that ERICY one of the largest in the world is contesting IDC's patents the company was very fortunate to license anyone after 1993 but they did. By taking up-front payments it has kept IDC alive an well because ERICY and the rest thought IDC would go belly up. Just the mere fact that IDC claims to have essential IPR in all 5 standards should tell you IDC isn't going away. Add to that the fact that all the patents in question in the ERICY case have been sent back to the IPO for reexamination and have been approved just like the Q's patent were it makes IDC's chances in court look very good. The jurors this time don't have to establish the validity of the patents as that will be established from the testimonies of the expert witnesses and decided at the Markman hearings. All that's left is for the jurors to decide if there was infringement or not. My final question to you would be would ERICY spend all the court costs for seven years to try and invalidate patents they didn't infringe? If you can answer yes to that then you do have all the answers.