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: Quincy who wrote (3917)	2/14/2000 12:41:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Qunicy; i've not read Gus comments. but will say that IDC's agreement with Qualcomm was pertinent to IS-95 only. CDMA2000 was non-existant at the time the original legal agreement was formed; it could not have been included in the original agreement on this basis alone. The technology that is applicable IN Is-95 must be transferred to CDMA2000 - Qualcomm must sign NEW CDMA2000 agreements with IMT2000 partners. The transfer of the technology is through the means of signing new agreements. If Qualcomm did not need to sign new CDMA2000 agreements relative to IMT2000 standards, they wouldn't be so vigorously pursuing this task currently. The argument that IS-95 technology is contained within CDMA2000 is obviously correct. But both are separated by the chasm of international agreement. It is irrelevant whether IS-95 and CDMA2000 are based upon similar modes of functionality and frequency transmission (or banding as I assume Gus is referring to). IS95 (A and B) is IS95, and CDMA2000 is CDMA2000. Both are separately identifiable documents, both by the international standards' bodies, the IMT2000 and, and I would presume, in a court of law. A company can not guarantee the transfer of one technology defined in one standard to similar technology defined in a separate standard without listing that technology in a licensing agreement. CDMA2000 was non-existant when IDC signed the IPR inclusion with Qualcomm. New agreements must be established. The basis of those new agreements are debatable - but clearly IDC's technology transfer from IS-95 to CDMA2000 has already been made clear to Qualcomm in meetings. Additional technology carried within CDMA2000 is also being addressed under IDC's "essential" ownership. This same type of legal morasse kept IDC from fulling collecting royalties from Japan (handset sales within Japan) under their TDMA standard known as "PDC". A country has the "right" to establish their own communication standards and exclude certain parties from participating in that standard. Currently, though, IDC, through their agent in Japan, is pursuing proper payment from the Japanese for PDC sales within Japan. IDC's patent renewal within the U.S. was obviously applicable only to the U.S. If IDC were to pursue a similar track in Japan, the players who've not paid up their would end up owing significantly more later than if they simply agree to terms now.

To: Quincy who wrote (3917)	2/14/2000 2:57:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

It hasn't earned them access to other Q patents which could make BCDMA more appealing to providers IDC doesn't need QCOM's narrowband patents to make BCDMA work for fixed wireless apps. -- InterDigital and its partners successfully demonstrated wideband CDMA technology in fixed wireless products in field trials in five countries. Message 12848599 Elements of BCDMA technology are being incorporated into 3g WCDMA, the de facto upgrade path. -- System-on-a-Chip ASIC for fixed wireless applications, employing wideband CDMA air interface technology, produced with Texas Instruments. Successful tests validated high performance of InterDigital's proprietary wideband CDMA air interface and systems designs - many portions of which are reusable in developing new 3G technologies. Will providers ever use channels wider than 10Mhz? The Mobile Communications handbook, Second Edition, 1999, IEEE Press Channel bandwidth WCDMA: 5,10,20 MHz cdma2000: 1.2.5,5,10,15,20 MHz ragingbull.com Is that simple enough for you? That's the state of CDMA2000 and WCDMA as of 1999. What has changed since then, Quincy? It might help if you pay more attention to the ITU and see how global frequencies are being aligned or how specifications are being formulated. Next ITU meeting will be held from 3/7 to 3/10/2000. The point is simple: IDC's CDMA patents represent a clear alternative to QCOM's CDMA patents as REAL WORLD events are starting to reveal. One can buy early or one can buy later. By the way, I find interesting the way you focus on my "insults" and totally ignore the cavalier attacks on people's character and intelligence from your fellow QCOM fanatics. It amuses me no end to see how you narrowminded narrowband CDMA zealots are now trying to characterize a cross-licensing agreement as a sale in order to preserve your fantasies that only QCOM has the patents to make 3g work. Get real.