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: Gus who wrote (3967)	2/15/2000 9:03:00 PM
From: Bux	Respond to of 5195

We have a humorous situation on our hands. On one hand Gus has sworn off reading any posts written by me by putting me on ignore but on the otherhand, he is "chomping at the bit" to ridicule me and say whatever he wants with no chance of having to answer a rebuttal since he can claim he doesn't read my posts anymore (unless my words are quoted by another participant). And then we have Darrell, a.k.a. "Corpgold, expert telecom investment specialist", who is right now reviewing my last two months worth of posts, looking for a slip or misstatement I have made so he can come up with something to challenge me with to fulfill his ridiculous challenge. If he can't come up with anything substantial, his reputation is damaged, and if he just ignores me and acts like he never made the challenge then his reputation is damaged also. Right now I am betting two to one that he acts like the whole challenge is just so far below himself, he is just too important to waste his time following up. Of course in the meantime he will have avoided providing any support whatsoever to his statement that the '94 agreement is limited only to IS-95. Bux

To: Gus who wrote (3967)	2/15/2000 9:03:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

A license is not a sale. DUH! Given the amount of useless posts devoted to a pointless debate about the sale of pioneering patent rights or cross-licensing, I think it's important to use REAL WORLD sworn statements to show the common sense difference. This is an excerpt lifted from the IDC 10K filed on 3/31/99: .....One of these licenses involved a CDMA cross-license agreement with Qualcomm, entered into in 1994 in settlement of litigation filed in 1993. In return for a one-time payment of $5.5 million, ITC granted to Qualcomm a fully-paid, worldwide license to USE and SUBLICENSE certain specified and then existing ITC CDMA patents........ [four pioneering Schilling patents and one continuation of the pioneering Paneth et al patents] Message 12827090 .....Qualcomm granted to InterDigital a royalty-free license to USE AND SUBLICENSE the patent that Qualcomm had asserted against InterDigital and a royalty-bearing license to use certain Qualcomm CDMA patents in InterDigital's B-CDMA products, if needed. INTERDIGITAL DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO USE ANY OF SUCH ROYALTY-BEARING OR NON-LICENSED QUALCOMM PATENTS IN ITS B-CDMA SYSTEM. [just one patent] And this is the kind of disclosure required for the sale of patents, a material event. From the 7/7/1997 MTIC 10K Effective February 9, 1996, the Company entered into an agreement with EMC whereby the Company SOLD to EMC substantially all of the Company's existing patents, patent applications, and rights thereof. The Company has an irrevocable, non-cancelable, perpetual and royalty-free license to exploit, market and sell the technology protected under the aforementioned patents. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement, this license will terminate in the event of a change of control of the Company involving certain identified acquirers. As part of the agreement, the Company and EMC grant to each other the license to exploit, market and sell the technology associated with each of their respective existing and future patents arising from any patent applications in existence as of the effective date of the agreement for a period of five years. Now, how much time was wasted reading the nonsense written by trivial people like Bux and his minions? But then again, is that really a surprise? Most of you will remember the delightful spectacle of watching some irrational and emotional QCOM shareholders on RB began shorting IDC at $10-$12 because 'how dare a penny stock like IDC try to ride on the mighty QCOM's wave?' The old saying applies -- buy despair, sell euphoria and one can always make money off zealots. Deja vu all over again. LOL.

To: Gus who wrote (3967)	2/16/2000 2:43:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Gus, excellent source. obviously the neopoint agreement does allow for use of certain IDC patents under 10mghz under certain conditions relative to a certain platform. however, 3g devices and applications will be necessarily licensed for a spreading range of 5mghz to 20mghz; and depending on the government allowance, some higher. it would not be practical for a licensee who wants to particpate in the third generation circus to make and sell products whose transmission capabilities were limited to 10mghz or less. asymmetrical and/or video signals will require a larger spread than 10mghz, most likely up to 15mghz especially on a downlink (where no retransmission is required). spreading of the signal is required for both uplink and downlink. asymmetrical traffic, especially on the downlink, may, in the future, comprise over 80% of all traffic given some inherent technical advantages of sending traffic in this manner (or as IMT2000 has proposed, if the shear amount of proposed asymmetric traffic results in a decrease in frequency utilizaiton, time division duplexing or TDD may become the REQUIRED method of future transmission for all multimedia services within microcells - and we know who owns nearly all applicable 3g TDD IPRs, don't we?). conceptually, a device that is limited to a spread of 10mghz or less realistically would not take advantage of the range of multi-media services made available for transmission on the dowlink. to call such a limited device "third generation" would be questionable. a spreading limited to under 10mghz also, i believe, limits the applicable applications to potential growth due to customer demands. nevertheless, this is a very complex technologically based subject which can not be adequately addressed by posting to this site. there are some who have made the case that IDC owns over half of all essential IPR for transmission in excess of a spread of 10mghz. the IMT2000 platform is "requiring" that WCDMA 3g systems have the capability of demonstrating a wider spread than 10mghz in order to be compliant with the platform.