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: Bill Dalglish who wrote (4178)	4/24/2000 8:52:00 AM
From: Jim Lurgio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Bill, I responded to Barker Mr. Barker, I was surprised to see how quickly you decided to do an article on IDC Was it because of the new CEO? IMO your way ahead of the pack. You asked for opinions on the value of Interdigital's patents, so here is mine. They currently have 22 licensees for GSM/TDMA/PHS versus over 60 licensees for Qualcomm of IS-95. Qualcomm?s wealth from telecommunications is derived from only 15% of the users in the world with the rest of the users being GSM/TDMA/PHS etc. The Q, s user base is only strong in the USA and Korea. The other 85 % of the world is indicating they will use a W-CDMA version and not Qualcomm?s CDMA2000. Qualcomm has also claimed they own the keys to the castle and no matter what version of CDMA is used everyone must license with them. If this is true than why is Qualcomm trying to get spectrum in Japan for a CDMA2000 system? Many believe their share in W-CDMA is much less investors think and that?s why the push for CDMA2000. Many also think that going against the 3 top providers in Japan is a very bad business decision. China too is a mess regarding the introduction of IS-95 with delay after delay. China for your information has the largest user base of GSM in the world and it?s highly unlikely GSM will lose that lead. Interdigital however has stated they have essential IPR in all five proposed standards by the ITU that will be finalized the week of May 1-5. The ITU has classified patents, as essential and additive and you may want to ask Interdigital more about this. Their interim president Mr. Goldberg tried to simplify things for investors and compared the importance of them to the engine and transmission of a car. Now back to revenues. In the Motorola trial Interdigital asked for 1 « % of infrastructure and 3 % of handset sales. There are over 450 million users of GSM/TDMA/PHS in the world with many users being on their second and even third generation phones. Should the rest of the world license as the first 22 have you can see the amount of revenues due IDC for previous usage. The 1 « and 3% asked at the Mot trial is certainly questionable to many but I?m from the camp that believes these numbers were taken from the existing contracts that were negotiated under favorable and reasonable terms. My final thought is this. If 22 companies legal departments reviewed IDC?s patent portfolio and found them valid what did the others miss? I don?t think they missed a thing and they are all counting on the IDC versus ERICY case. The patents in question in that suit have been sent back to the US patent office and reexamined and reexamination certificates issued. This alone took two years. Many that followed the Markman hearing feel ERICY has no chance to have the patents invalidated but only continue the process with the hope to narrow the claims to pay less. One of the notables in the group that licensed with IDC for TDMA is Nokia, the leader of the band. I would venture to say Nokia?s legal department should be considered quite capable. Its also notable Nokia chose IDC help in their W-CDMA effort and not Qualcomm. I rest my case and state IDC should certainly be a part of anyone?s telecommunications portfolio. JimLur PS. Hoped this helped?