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 (3947)	2/15/2000 2:23:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Respond to of 5195

"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" you are incorrect in stating that because CDMA2000 includes technology from IS-95 that the licensed transfer from IS-95 is AUTOMATIC. again; I suggest you consult with a standards attorney on this issue. this is a very specialized field. a company WHO OWNS technology within IS-95 must agree to letting that technology transfer to future platforms, in this case CDMA2000. Qualcomm does not OWN IDC technology, they own the majorty of IS-95. IDC granted Qualcomm technology for use within IS-95; this grant was specific to IS-95. there is no legal document on file (or otherwise listed) in which IDC transfered THEIR technology to Qualcomm ad infinitum under all standards and for all intents and purposes under every condition conceivable. it was for the platform of IS-95. CDMA2000 is an international standard under which all operators had to communicate it's applicable transfer of technology and ownership therein. If you have an argument with the fact that IDC is claiming technology ownership within CDMA2000 (which they publically are), I suggest that you call their office and discuss it with them. Discussing it with me serves no purpose relative to a search for ultimate truth. But, truly, I doubt that you are in search of the truth. You are in search of arguing a position in order to help divert attention from the real revenue driving issues in which IDC is involved.