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 (3928)	2/14/2000 3:16:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5195

you need to re-read prior posts Bux. restating former points is useless if you do not bother to read what has already been written. as to your last post; it is a jungle. i would suggest that if you're going to consistently state that the burden of proof as to whether IS-95 is CDMA2000 defacto lies with those proving otherwise (you assume you are right, therefore the burden of proof lies on those who oppose your non-legal opinion) that you find another subject to debate. as for the frequency transmission question it is irrelevant to the overall issues that lie at the heart of making IS-95 different from CDMA2000 and the basis upon which claims are established. you are begging a question. first you state a fact (which has no basis in reality), then you build an entire argument around that so-called fact. as I suggested before; talk to a standards attorney. get it straight from the horses mouth. if IS-95 = CDMA2000, there would be no need for CDMA2000 to exist as a separate standard. check into standards law and how the ITU is handling these matters. do your own homework bux. you bleed hypotethicals and tons of questions; let's talk about IDC's real, current future and numbers. this IS-95 to CDMA2000 is a useless spin to divert attention from IDC's true growth areas. As for your continued misuse of the word "IS-95 type" which was invented by this board - "IS-95 type" is not found in any of the agreements. Again, re-read Q-s annual report: "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" The word "IS-95 type" has a completely different meaning than "IS-95". IS-95 is used in the legal documents, not "IS-95 type".