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 (3887)	2/12/2000 7:27:00 PM
From: James J. Ebersberger	Respond to of 5195

I almost bought IDC on Friday but I looked at this bull and said "why is it going down if it is so good. NOT:-)

To: Bux who wrote (3887)	2/12/2000 10:59:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Bux, You continue to be DISHONEST by trying to split hairs and trying desperately to make the slimy distinction between the sale of patents and patent rights. Why can't you have the integrity to acknowledge that in 1994 Qualcomm and IDC agreed on a CROSS-LICENSING agreement which involved the EXCHANGE OF PATENT RIGHTS where QCOM paid $5.5 million and up to this point, IDC has not paid a damn cent. Neither QCOM or IDC relinquished any of their patent rights or their ability to continue advancing the state of the art in broadband CDMA (IDC) and narrowband CDMA (QCOM) Details like that make all the difference on a medium like the internet where slimy people like you can so casually substitute cheap and voluminous prose for the fairly self-evident truths in the facts on the ground and then protesth to high heavens the lack of substance. What is unquestionable and easily verifiable is that QCOM paid $5.5 million to IDC for IS-95 usage under 10Mhz ONLY. What is unquestionable and easily verifiable is that IDC has not paid a single cent to QCOM even though the 1994 cross-licensing agreement contained a framework for royalties to be paid by IDC its normal sub-licensees for fair usage. Do you actually think you can protect the share price from it's inevitable and ugly slide? No. Do you really think you can continue to perpetuate the cheap and transparent PR campaign to convince people that QCOM's narrowband CDMA is the only source of CDMA technology? It may have been borderline justifiable before the passage of the 3g family of 5 standards when there was the reasonable fear that QCOM's narrowband CDMA would be designed out of the 3g standards, but the landscape has changed now, Buxie, Buxie. Be careful what you say when you try to predict stock price because the facts might come back to hurt you again and again and again. This is a comparative chart showing the relative performance of QCOM and IDC during the last 120 days which roughly corresponds to the timing of the 2 most likely catalysts behind IDC's rise: a) the 3G Patent Platform announcement in June 1999 and, b) the ITU announcement in November 1999 regarding the 3G family of five standards based on TDMA, broadband and narrowband CDMA and hybrids of TDMA/CDMA: IDC - 566% QCOM - 188% siliconinvestor.com Note the price behavior of both stocks during the change of tax seasons. Finally, are you implicitly acknowledging that you did not say this? Careful Bux, I'm questioning your integrity here because of your insinuation in this statement that you were privy to inside information. The stupidity of this statement is self-evident. I know these contracts are not in the public domain but I understand Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, Motorola and all other current licensees have signed contracts that obligate them to pay Qualcomm royalties if they use Qualcomm's CDMA innovations ever, even after the patents have expired. ragingbull.com