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: slacker711 who wrote (3976)	2/16/2000 1:06:00 AM
From: Bux	Respond to of 5195

Is it generally accepted that Qualcomm was licensed for channel widths which are less than 10MHz (or do you think it was ONLY IS-95)? That's a good question Slacker, Qualcomm says they don't need additional IDC IPR and IDC says they have essential IPR. I think you know who I put more trust in. Additionally, the NeoPoint SEC filing makes the Qualcomm case appear stronger since it uses language like "IS-95 type" technologies and "under 10MHz" in bandwidth when describing the terms of the '94 agreement. It looks to me like this is one more instance where IDC will have to rely on their lawyers again to attempt a patent infringement suit for I can't imagine that Q would voluntarily give IDC more than a token or "good riddance" payment given Qualcomm's public statements about their IPR. Other sincere opinions welcome, Bux