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 (3946)	2/15/2000 1:15:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

What makes you think I am confusing the '94 Qualcomm/IDC agreement with (I assume you mean) the license agreement Qualcomm has with NeoPoint? License agreements are not normally filed with the SEC but IPO disclosures always are. Neopoint was disclosing to the SEC and to investors the facts that could materially affect their ability to do business and these statements are sworn and signed. Are you now claiming they are inaccurate? Then you re-iterate that CDMA2000 was non-existent when the '94 agreement was created. You still believe that an agreement can not apply to future technologies but you are wrong. Of course future technologies can't be referred to by name since they don't have one, but it is common for license agreements to define the allowed uses within certain technical and/or geographical parameters and thus avoiding having to specifically name technologies that don't exist yet. Since it appears you still don't understand maybe this simple geographical example will help. A manufacturer wants to license their technology to another company but they don't want the licensee to compete with them in their home market of Brazil. So the license is drafted to allow use of the technology in every country except Brazil. The license doesn't have to name every country in the world except Brazil and newly incorporated countries are included in the license. This appears to be the way the '94 agreement was structured, not by listing the names of every technology that is allowed, but by defining certain technical specifications under which the use of the licensed IPR is allowed, ie., under 10MHz and I'm sure there are others. Incidentally, both W-CDMA and CDMA2000 will be under 10MHz. Darrell, please explain, in this context, just what is the significance of your repetitive claim that CDMA2000 didn't even exist in 1994? You then say that IDC doesn't need CDMA2000 to succeed and that WCDMA is key. WCDMA is also under 10MHz, could W-CDMA also fit within the allowed uses of the '94 agreement? Bux

To: D.J.Smyth who wrote (3946)	2/15/2000 1:33:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

tell you what Bux. you prove it is and i'll gladly give you information which may help you define otherwise. But Darrell, I'm not the one who said it. Are you claiming to be misrepresented on the Dalglish IDC promo site? telecomtechstocks.com "Several years ago, in litigation between Qualcomm and InterDigital, a patent court ruled in InterDigital's favor. Qualcomm agreed to pay InterDigital over $5 million and both companies cross licensed each other for second generation (2G) useage of certain of their patent properties. But, according to telecom tech investment expert Darrell Smith (aka "Corpgold" on some message boards), the agreement does not provide for Qualcomm's transfer of InterDigital's patented technology in third generation use. That would be a very significant opening for IDC in Qualcomm's CDMA market. Instead of simply passing on to its clients the InterDigital technology it cross licensed years ago, in any third generation useage, manufacturers will now have to acquire licensing from InterDigital for IDC's part of their products technology. (The process of licensing and royalties will thus be significantly different for 3G manufacturing." Darrell, you are claiming some things here that are very material to IDC's future. We are talking about some foundational patents, not whatever refinements or improvements IDC may have developed in the mean-time. I am simply asking you to provide support for these claims. Your refusal to do so does not help your reputation. Sincerely, Bux