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: Jim Lurgio who wrote (3983)	2/16/2000 1:57:00 AM
From: Bux	Respond to of 5195

Wow, I didn't know Raging Bull had such high quality posts, Jim. Are there any more "good" ones over there you're holding back on? Do you care to elaborate on the implications of this? I mean this could be huge! I can see the revenues now, they are sure to come! Me gonna be very, very, happy. Bux

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (3983)	2/16/2000 2:06:00 AM
From: Gus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Jim, Lucent is also a major chip manufacturer and below is their SoC design philosopy. Allentown is only 55 miles away from King Of Prussia and Lucent's evolving coopetitive stance towards small companies and startups are only now becoming more visible with the way that the likes of JDSU, SDLI and many others are capturing the percentage of manufacturing being outsourced by the keepers and enforcers of the Bellcore standards that itself are evolving to cope with tremendous growth of data vis-a-vis voice on wireline and wireless networks. The moving balance seems to be around 30% but demand exceeds supply so capacity is constantly being expanded. "SOC is our default approach but we aren't religious about this," declares Mark Pinto, semiconductor business unit manager at Lucent Technologies Inc. in Allentown, Pa. "We put as much on one chip as possible and use multi-chip for incompatible functions, or as backup strategies." "SOC makes sense," he says, "where the device can be pure CMOS--including functions like IF or RF, and RAM,--and so long as chip-size and performance requirements are appropriate." But some functions are difficult, if not impossible, to integrate, Pinto notes. "Optoelectronics, for example, demands gallium arsenide rather than Silicon. And you can integrate flash, but it's costly. What you need for a successful SOC," he says, "is vanilla CMOS." One class of product that rarely will be integrated, Pinto says, is power. Because these devices dissipate a lot of heat, SOC packaging grows bulky and expensive, offsetting SOC's cost and size advantages, he notes. Lucent designs programmable logic in SOCs. One example is a V.90 packet radio SOC for GSM. This chip includes a DSP, microprocessor, flash, SRAM, A-to-D conversion, embedded debugging, as well as analog functions. But the heart of the design is 120,000 programmable gates where the OEM can store his own bit stream, tailoring the SOC to specific applications. Lucent also offers FPGAs in SOCs. Message 12872956 Check out how flip chips, which up to this point have only been used in aerospace and microprocessors -- Pentium III (laminates) and Athlon (ceramics) -- fit in the power part of the mobile equation. MSCC has some interesting literature on the subject and arguably the smallest flip chips in the industry.

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (3983)	2/16/2000 3:30:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 5195

Hi Jim, my first visit to Interdigital thread [and probably my last]. I read Gus's post on Coming Into Buy Range about Bux being petulant, a child and all that stuff. Going through Bux's mind and all that. Now I see Gus saying Bux is a shrill idiot?! Oops, and more <adamant hair-splitting and sniveling>. I read every link Gus gave in that post and ended up here. I really couldn't see anything wrong with what Bux wrote and as you know, I've read most things about Qualcomm since about 1992. Now I see Bux starting to reply in kind a couple of posts back. I was surprised that Gus seemed to think it was game, set and match with those links to Bux's comments?!! I can't be bothered wading very far at all here, but the little I've read from Gus is totally non-persuasive. Bux seems a paragon of reason with more comment about IDC and patent stuff than Gus who seems more interested in Bux's alleged deficiencies. I doubt that Bux's deficiencies will have a significant impact on either IDC or Qualcomm so I don't know why they are relevant here. Hope you are enjoying the Chicago winter! Sun down south. Oh heck, now my weaknesses will be dragged into daylight as proof that Qualcomm is no good and IDC is great. Should have kept my fingers still. Okay, I will!! But first I should add that I have the greatest admiration for IDC lawyers who achieved a multimillion$$ settlement from Qualcomm several years ago. I'm sure also that IDC has a multitude of meritorious and meretricious attributes apart from excellent lawyers. This is in no way a critical comment of IDC. IDC will probably take over cyberspace with their excellent photonic phragmenters. Maurice PS: Just found this too re Bux: <...a very minor intellect with a reptilian sense of honor> Gee Bux, are you living in a cage? You should be if all this is true.

To: Jim Lurgio who wrote (3983)	2/16/2000 4:01:00 PM
From: w molloy	Respond to of 5195

From the ERICY thread - question to the attorneys. What I can not understand is why any IPR issues were not settled when standards were being set some 10 years ago. To me that would only indicate that all players (bar IDC) thought its patents were irrelevant or even worse that IDC failed (deliberately or otherwise) to come forward. That is what I can't fathom and would like to know from IDC themselves as to their failing. Message 12883957