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 (3990)	2/16/2000 4:05:00 PM
From: w molloy	Respond to of 5195

Question to the telecom tech investment experts How are IPR issues resolved in the standards bodies? I am most curious about GSM, although I am interested in IS-95/IS-136 too. Is the situation any different in Japan? w.

To: Bux who wrote (3990)	2/16/2000 6:31:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Bux, you must pride yourself in your ability to overinterpret and distort. I have rarely visited Bill Dalglish' site and frankly never read what I was supposed to have said until posted here. Nevertheless, I do not see a significant problem with how Bill worded this, although, I personally would not have worded what I supposedly said in the same manner. If you take Bill's paragraph as a whole, it appears generally correct. Bill clearly states, "...instead of passing on to its clients the Interdigital technology it cross licensed years ago, in any third generation useage...". although Bill does not specify any conditions or limitations under which IDC technology is or is not transferred, which technology, or patents are being referred to, or which "manufacturers" he is talking about, the statement in and of itself would be deemed correct, due, in part, to it being generally correct. 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." the 94 agreement with Qualcomm could not have provided for transfer of IDC IPR to a "third generation" if that "third generation" platform as specified under IMT2000 did not exist. The IMT2000 platform does specify the conditions under which technology is transferred from previous platforms and to it. If a court of law agreed that the IMT2000 platform's transfer guidelines supercedes (or negates) previous agreements relative to those agreeing to abide by the IMT2000 platform; so be it. I'm sure there were conditions specified in '94 under which technology transfer to Qualcomm licensees would and would not occur. the transfer of IDC technology from IS95 to CDMA2000 platforms, however, is a Qualcomm invention and interpretation. as for Bill's term "opening for IDC in Qualcomm's CDMA market..."; Qualcomm's CDMA market has always been interpreted to include CDMA2000 and WCDMA. If you don't believe that WCDMA represents a market for Qualcomm, I would suggest that you do further research. I do believe that WCDMA represents a very significant market for IDC. as for the remainder of your post regarding lawsuits - i'm not concerned with my communication in these matters. your practiced means of distortion, overkill and veiled threats, does warrant further examination. in the meantime you take as much pleasure in the misspelling of a name as you do in distortion.