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: postyle who wrote (10085)	5/14/2000 4:21:00 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 13582

postyle, << 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 >> Countered yes, "successfully", I'm not so sure. Why is it that all of Darrell's and Bill's posts sound like a carefully structured "infomercial"? Here is one of Bill's latest on the Ericsson thread: Message 13600593 It is replete with the politely worded disclosure: When I post, it is almost always on IDCC-related boards, but occasionally on other boards related to firms in which I personally own shares (Qualcomm, Cisco, Nortel, Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson). More frequently, I lurk on these boards. This post is offered as information only, not to start an argument with the people I admire who post here. I am not short Ericsson, never have been, and have no intention to be short Ericsson in the future. - Eric -

To: postyle who wrote (10085)	5/14/2000 10:22:00 PM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

>> 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? That's right... 3rd generation did not exist as a platform or even as a phrase back then. Therefore the agreement was drawn using the technical descriptions and phraseology to describe the particular technology and features being agreed upon. Now, years later the subject of this agreement may be called 3rd generation, fourth generation, or whatever. it simply does not matter and does not change the agreement. Why don't you convince IDCC to got to court. They never will. They are a little smarter than that.

To: postyle who wrote (10085)	5/15/2000 11:06:00 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Your memory must be short. My posts to Darrell Smith have been primarily corrections of his far reaching statements that portray IDC as the next Qualcomm. His responses to me are very discombobulated and avoid the issues I raise. I would like to respond to some of the far-reaching statements and other fallacies you have re-posted here. 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. The IDC/Qualcomm agreement allows the use of IDC's TDMA patents in a CDMA network. I think you are prematurely doubting Q's ability to use IDC's patents in a TD-CDMA system. Keep in mind the agreement will be read using the technical language of the year the agreement was made. TD-CDMA is a spread-spectrum technology and has primarily a CDMA based air-interface. It seems quite clear to me that Qualcomm is only prohibited from using the IDC TDMA patents in a TDMA based system. I think Qualcomm will have an easy time of defending their rights simply by showing that TD-CDMA is a CDMA based technology. 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? I think the most obvious answer is usually the best. Perhaps Neopoint was being very open and up-front originally but when they were made aware that was a sensitive area, they did the easy thing and removed it. I think we received a nice glimpse of the position Qualcomm will vigorously defend if challenged. When asked if IDC had anything to do with the editing of the agreement they simply stated "no comment". I'm surprised you even find that material enough to mention. That is IDC's response for just about every tough question. 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.) If IDC's patents expire before commercialization of spreads greater than 10Mhz then it's kind of a mute point isn't it? 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? This is the same lame-brain thinking that is typical of those arguing that IDC is a baby Qualcomm. No matter how many times it is pointed out that agreements can apply to technologies not even conceived, lame-brainers will keep repeating this mantra. It's like having your insurance company argue they don't have to fix your car that was hit by a new Prowler because that kind of car didn't even exist when you purchased your policy so how COULD it apply. Duh! Bux

To: postyle who wrote (10085)	5/15/2000 1:15:00 PM
From: D.J.Smyth	Respond to of 13582

postyle - comment by Binmore, London School of Economics and Nokia application: 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? A) if you read current Nokia statements (in the last two months) in regard to their questioning the need to license Qualcomm's 3g CDMA technology, you'll note they interestingly make a similar statement. they question the applicability of the current CDMA IPRs in IS95 as applied to the third generation platform. too many want to make this an IDCC vs. Qualcomm issue. but, it is Nokia which is balking at licensing. it is more a Nokia/Qualcomm issue at this point. B) interesting news release regarding Phd comment, Binmore who designed British Auction, on analysts' knowledge of 3g: ragingbull.com "The analysts don't know [anything]," according to Ken Binmore, professor of economics at University College London, who designed the British 3G auction. "They didn't notice the auction was coming up in the first place. Then when they saw it happening they had no idea how to price it. First it was 5 billion, then 10 billion." He doesn?t agree that consumers will be milked to recover the cost of the licenses or that third-generation mobile operators in the United Kingdom will be out of business before they can finish their networks. totaltele.com Unrelated OT news is a 3M patent infringement victory over Siemens on the patents relating to technology for electroluminescent (EL) lamps used in handsets, among other things. Not particularly relevant, but it shows the relatively large amount of prejudgment interest involved in an old lawsuit. As I recall, the original press release did not come out until about a week after the verdict; this release relates to the permanent injunction granted. biz.yahoo.com My personal view regarding InterDigital/Ericsson, as I have posted earlier, is that the possibility of a permanent injunction seeking to shut down production against Ericsson is not a particularly important part of the settlement value of the case. There was a question last week from asascott, I believe, whether a temporary injunction against Ericsson was a possibility. The short answer is that InterDigital has not requested such relief in its complaint. I think InterDigital?s request for a permanent injunction following a successful verdict is related to insuring that it will get paid, and not necessarily seeking to shut down production.