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: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3930)	2/14/2000 4:09:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

LOL. Darrell. I have Bux on ignore, but he apparently is still shamelessly copying the tactics of the Ericsson lawyers. He must think it makes him appear to be the most intelligent member of the Feckless Debating Society. By golly, IS-95 must be the same as CDMA2000 or how else can QCOM support the claim that it owns CDMA if it needs patents from a fringe player like IDC? By sharp contrast, IDC has asserted point blank that it doesn't need QCOM's patents to implement fixed and mobile B-CDMA. Point blank! ......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. From the IDC Markman brief: By contrast,Ericsson appears to focus on what the claims do not cover, rather than what they mean. ....Ericsson's proposed construction ignores and deviates from the plain wording of the claims; ....adds terms and limitations that simply do not exist in the claim language or the specifications; ....attempts to read comprising claims as consisting essentially of claims; ....imports excessive structure from the specifications into the claims; ....and misinterprets the prosecution history and the holdings in the prior Motorola litigation between InterDigital and Motorola, Inc. ( Motorola )..... The parties have exchanged claim construciton charts with proposed interpretations of virtually every word, term, and phrase in the Asserted Patents. Regrettably, the parties have not been able to agree on the meaning of any appreciable number of claim terms. Markman does not require the Court to provide an interpretation of every word, term, and phrase in a claim. Message 12774523

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3930)	2/14/2000 5:58:00 PM
From: Quincy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Bux, terms such as CDMA2000 and IS95 are red-herrings designed to distract us from actual risks. Why would a company like Qualcomm, with experience in private and government-comissioned CDMA systems PREDATING IS95 and Omnitracks, include the term "IS95" in an agreement knowing it uses a chiprate of 1.2255 Mcps (corresponding channel width of 1.2Mhz) with an agreed upper limit of 10Mhz channel width? None of these parameters are in any of their patents. The two terms do not match electrically. FINLAND???

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3930)	2/14/2000 11:16:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Darrell, I never said "IS-95=CDMA2000", stop misrepresenting what I have said. I would be interested if you would cut and paste the part that made you think I believe that. 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: "IS-95 type" was not invented by this board. You are the one that needs to review the previous posts! That term was cut and pasted straight from the Neopoint SEC filings. 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. I have never stated the burden of proof lies with you or anyone else. Please copy and paste where I have said this. I have challenged you to support your statement which is echoed on the Daglish IDC promo site that the '94 agreement only applies to IS-95. I have never stated unequivocally that it doesn't, but the evidence I have seen implies it probably applies to most or all 3G as well as IS-95. I am still waiting for you to defend the accuracy of the "information" you spread around the internet. Personally, I am very careful to make sure the statements I make are truthful and I am giving you the opportunity to do the same. Can you rise to the challenge? Sincerely, Bux