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: Bill Dalglish who wrote (3854)	2/11/2000 2:12:00 AM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Fascinating contrast of disclosures: Neopoint was obligated to disclose the sub-licensing rights involved in the 1994 IDC-QCOM cross-licensing agreement. Here are the excerpts that reveal more detail than the disclosures of IDC and QCOM: Message 12827090 Message 12827136 This is IDC's disclosure in the 3/31/1999 10K One of these licenses involved a CDMA cross-license agreement with Qualcomm, entered into in 1994 in settlement of litigation filed in 1993. In return for a one-time payment of $5.5 million...... .......ITC granted to Qualcomm a fully-paid, worldwide license to use and sublicense certain specified and then existing (but excluding defined after-filed and/or granted) ITC CDMA patents (including related divisional and continuation patents) to make and sell products for IS-95-type wireless applications, including, but not limited to, cellular, PCS, wireless local loop and satellite applications..... .....Qualcomm has the right to sublicense certain of ITC's licensed CDMA patents so that Qualcomm's licensees will be free to manufacture and sell IS-95-type CDMA products without requiring any payment to ITC. Neither ITC's patents concerning cellular overlay and interference cancellation nor its current inventions are licensed to Qualcomm. Under the settlement, Qualcomm granted to InterDigital a royalty-free license to use and to sublicense the patent that Qualcomm had asserted against InterDigital and a royalty-bearing license to use certain Qualcomm CDMA patents in InterDigital's B-CDMA products, if needed. InterDigital does not believe that it will be necessary to use any of such royalty-bearing or non-licensed Qualcomm patents in its B-CDMA system.In addition, Qualcomm agreed, subject to certain restrictions, to license certain CDMA patents on a royalty bearing basis to those InterDigital customers that desire to use Qualcomm's patents. The license to InterDigital does not apply to IS-95-type systems, or to satellite systems. Certain of Qualcomm's patents, relating to key IS-95 features such as soft and softer hand-off, variable rate vocoding, and orthogonal (Walsh) coding, are not licensed to InterDigital.......... In 1999, InterDigital entered into royalty bearing TDMA and CDMA patent licenses with Nokia, which are paid up generally through the project period, and provide a structure for determining royalty payments thereafter. This is the Qualcomm disclosure in the 11/17/1999 10K: Ericsson, Motorola and InterDigital have each advised the TIA that they hold patent rights in technology embodied in IS-95. Lucent and OKI Electric have claimed patent rights in IS-96. In accordance with TIA guidelines, each company has confirmed to the TIA that it is willing to grant licenses under its rights on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms....... .......In connection with the settlement and dismissal of the Company's patent litigation with InterDigital, the Company received, among other rights, a fully-paid, royalty free license to use and to sublicense the use of those patents claimed by InterDigital to be essential to IS-95..... .....If the Company and other product manufacturers are required to obtain additional licenses and/or pay royalties to one or more patent holders this could have a material adverse effect on the commercial implementation of the Company's CDMA technology. That's the patent picture presented in the sworn statements of IDC, QCOM and Neopoint. Again, the more important point here is that Nokia and IDC have been working for close to a year now on fixed *and* mobile wireless solutions based on BCDMA technology, elements of which are being incorporated into the WCDMA standard. Keep in mind that IDC has consistently stated in its sworn filings that it does not need to use any of QCOM's technology. Next ITU meeting is scheduled from March 7, 2000 to March 10, 2000. Quicken over at the IDC Club was gracious enough to list down the similarities and differences between 3g CDMA2000 and WCDMA: ragingbull.com Again, the more important to keep in mind is that there are at least 6 R-E-A-L W-O-R-L-D WCDMA trials going on around the world in conjunction with some heavy duty abstractions about national and global frequencies so it is difficult for anyone to determine the final components of each of the 5 systems in the 3g family of standards. One can easily form an opinion, however, of the influence of the players like Nokia, Motorola and Ericsson in the standards process. Incidentally, has anyone been keep tabs of the way the Big 3 have been racking up billions of dollars in TDMA/GSM infrastructure sales? Remember the sequence: follow the infrastructure sales then the initial handset sales then the handset upgrade sales to get a more realistic idea of the dynamics of scale in motion on a daily basis.

To: Bill Dalglish who wrote (3854)	2/11/2000 2:17:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

The actions of the U S Pagtent office announced on Monday by IDC confirms this very bold and important claim: You can't do TDMA or GSM without using InterDigital's patents Hi Bill, that's a pretty exciting piece you have written. It even got my heart beating a little faster. But your claim that IDC will receive royalties on every TDMA or GSM because the recent Patent Office announcement confirmed this goes too far. The U.S. Patent office doesn't make such broad judgements as you have stated above nor do they judge a patents value. All they do is confirm whether the patent is a valid patent as written, not whether any (or every)TDMA and GSM device infringes upon the patent, that's a job that's left for patent courts. It will be interesting to see if the equipment makers start signing licenses rapidly, or if they will wait for IDC to file lawsuits and take their chances in court. While I'm at it, I wonder what your take is on the information recently disclosed in Neopoints IPO SEC filings. It basically indicates that the CDMA patents that were licensed to Qualcomm in 1994 are not limited to narrowband CDMA technology as was previously thought. The filings indicate the patents can continued to be used for wideband CDMA with up to 10MHz of spreading but the widest 3G proposal I have seen is for 5MHz width. Is it your understanding that there are other limitations on this license that preclude the royalty free use and sublicensing by Qualcomm of IDC's pioneer CDMA patents for advanced wireless systems? It seems previous IDC management may have made a critical error when they licensed those patents for such a small sum? Wouldn't this situation create a built-in cost advantage allowing Qualcomm to deploy a GSM compatible version of CDMA2000 without all royalties that are sure to be included in the price of WCDMA equipment, handsets, basestations, and test equipment? I don't know the answer but it certainly seems like a distinct possibility. Additionally, what about the mind-boggling potential market in China? While they are predominately GSM now, most areas have no coverage. If CDMA operators can find adequate funding, 2G CDMA could proliferate in a few years and be adapted to one of Qualcomms preferred 3G standards at low cost using a technology that IDC may not have any claim on. Again, I don't have the answer, I'm sure no one does yet but I am interested in your opinion of all this. Other sincere opinions welcome. Bux

To: Bill Dalglish who wrote (3854)	2/11/2000 12:14:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Welcome all newcomers! With the strong interest in InterDigital created recently, here is a fairly brief argument for including IDC in a diversified portfolio of stocks. Links are included for further DD. In the interest of DD, I would like to emphasis that the links included are all to a site run by Mr Dalglish that 'focuses' on hot telecomm stocks. Since the sites inception, the only stock that has been higlighted is IDC and Mr Dalglish has declined to comment on whether he ever intends to highlight other stocks. Visitors to Mr Dalglish's site should also be aware that a java applet is initiated trapping information about that visitor. Mr Dalglish occasionally publishes this information (in summary form) on this thread. Further emphasis on the content of Mr Dalglishes website THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM ANY INFORMATION POSTED HERE. telecomtechstocks.com IMO - DD should include analyst coverage and the most recent analyst reports, e.g. Zacks. January 11, 2000 Morgan Keegan, Inc. analyst Ramkrishna Kasargod reports 'Research coverage was dropped for this company due to its inability to form a long-term model, and increased risk levels.' ( Report No.: F0118512 ) A look at earnings trends is also in order, from sites other than www.telecomtechstocks.com Litigation history is important with this company. It lost a landmark case against MOT and has a similar case pending against ERICY. w