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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bux who wrote (10082)	5/14/2000 3:45:00 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

It is my admittedly nebulous understanding that patents are now good for 20 years. Perhaps someone with IPR expertise might wish to comment. Don't know if it makes any difference in this case, however.

To: Bux who wrote (10082)	5/14/2000 4:13:00 PM
From: postyle	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 13582

Bux, I figured w molloy's call to "disabuse" my posts would bring out your uninformed views. As most know, Darrell Smith has thoroughly (and successfully) countered each uninformed, biased opinion you have had on the issue. I see no need to re-create the wheel. But, to keep things in perspective, and to keep your narrow-minded views on the subject from going unopposed, I will re-post one of Darrell's past works. It was good enough for everyone to read more than "Once in a lifetime"... "...here is a more accurate interpretation of the IDC/qualcomm '94 agreement. Although technically this understanding is currently correct, you may want to reference that statement with (a) a complete understanding from IDC in reference to the spread limitation and (b) assymetric data designed specifically for TDD's operation: What many fail to comment about is that the "third Generation" is not only CDMA but also TD-CDMA. The '94 agreement with IDC provides for LIMITED use of the technology under most circumstances. BUT, many comments regarding the limitations are not at all accurate. Many completely misconstrues what Bill has stated and, obviously, what was stated by me. The key words in Bill's site, I believe, are "the agreement does not provide for Qualcomm's transfer of InterDigital's patented technology in third generation use". FIRST, YOU MUST DEFINE "THIRD GENERATION USE". Third generation use covers a wide range of applications, both CDMA and TDMA. I answered others in this regard many times. I have also asked Bill if he would possibly make a clarification of this issue to his site. What I believe Bill is saying is that a new agreement is needed between Qualcomm and IDC in order to cover ALL forms of third generation communication without limitation. The "limitations" to which many uniquely overlook is limitations in regard to spread and time division duplexing (TD-CDMA). Qualcomm can not utilize IDC's technology with a spread in excess of 10mghz. Nor, can they utilize the patents for use in any type of TD-CDMA format. This was not only stated in the neopoint filing, but also stated in all other known Qualcomm filings previous to the neopoint agreement. It should also be noted that when Neopoint made public the limitations of the 94 agreement, the Neopoint licesning agreement was amended no less than two weeks after the original agreement and excluded any mention of their ability to utilize WCDMA, IDC's technology, and/or the 3g limitations. Why did they do this? Why did they make such a point to edit their licensing agreement? When IDC was asked why this was their response was to ask Neopoint. When asked if IDC had anything to do with the editing of the agreement they simply stated "no comment". The reference to the Neopoint agreement is now moot because the Neopoint agreement has been effectively edited. No longer is Qualcomm giving Neopoint full license for 3g products and services reference IDC's technology; although that certainly doesn't mean that the use is there and is possibly implied. Nevertheless, the 10mghz spread limitation is significant. It is true that a 3g system can be deployed with less than a 10mghz spread. But, it is also true that IMT2000 platform REQUIRES that any company operating within the 3g arena eventually HAVE THE ABILITY to utilize a larger spread due principally to potential information overload and data type. It should also be noted that assymetric data within the ITU platform is designated for a spread of 15mghz and greater; any less than this and the system is constrained. It is this TD-CDMA data format that allows the transfer of assymetric downloads (one way communication) of large data files (such as TV, internet, etc.) So, when you ask IDC if these limitations are enough to prevent Qualcomm from applying the 94 agreement patents to CDMA2000 (the airlink in question) and WCDMA wholesale, they state "it is up to the attorneys to decide". The 94' agreement clearly DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE TRANSFER OF IDC'S TECHNOLOGY TO THE THIRD GENERATION. HOW COULD IT, THE THIRD GENERATION PLATFORM WAS NON-EXISTENT in 1994? Does it cover the the transfer of of IDC's technology in a limited manner to the any Qualcomm format? Yes, under the limitations specified in the agreement. Does this "limited transfer" qualify technically as "third generation"? The ultimate answer is that another agreement is needed to address the limitations not provided for in the '94 agreement...limitations which will prevent Qualcomm from exercising the use of the patented technology beyond those limitations. The limitations are there. 3g PROVIDES for, in fact, REQUIRES, spreads in excess of 10mghz for various data types and under certain information conditions. Does this mean that IDC's technology is limited for use under 10mghz, or does this mean that IDC's technology is limiting ONLY QUALCOMM to use under 10mghz. You need to look at both the engineering documentaries in relationship to Qualcomm and IDC and how IDC deployed BCDMA in order to better arrive at an answer to this question. BCDMA WAS UTILIZED IN SPREADS of 10mghz and greater! Yet Qualcomm has limited their spread techniques to less than 10mghz (other than testing). BCDMA's application, in fact, was limited due to this very fact. There is much, much more to this subject that needs to be addressed, and can not be addressed in public writings. You would have needed to have been there in 1996 and attending conferences debating these very issues, I do believe. IDC needs to stand up for themselves instead of perpetuating the eternal myths that shareholders hold about them. Message 13413801