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 (10131)	5/15/2000 1:12:00 PM
From: Bux	Respond to of 13582

Qualcomm may very well find it advantageous to further license IDC's IPR that falls outside of the scope of the '94 agreement, I believe the discussion was about the scope of the '94 agreement. I was simply pointing out the fact that the '94 agreement DOES apply to 3G. In no way have I ever taken the stance that Q would never find it advantageous to license other IDC IPR although you must admit, IDC is not exactly the IPR powerhouse that proponents paint it to be. And we have IDCC expressly stating they have IPR that intersects CDMA2000 (among other things) based upon patents, and patents pending, that fall outside of the scope of the '94 agreement. You yourself have stated that IDC still owns the patents that they have licensed the rights away to Qualcomm. In this light, IDC does have patents that intersect CDMA2000 (assuming Qualcomm is telling a white lie when they claimed the patents were licensed out of convenience only). Even if so, nobody in their right mind would pay IDC a dime for that IPR since they will need to license from QCOM anyway and Qualcomm offers all the needed IPR in one bundle for one low price. In effect, IDC may have IPR intersecting CDMA2000 but are powerless to generate revenue from it thanks to the wonderful '94 agreement. You can't just sweep that agreement under the rug and act like it doesn't matter. Bux

To: postyle who wrote (10131)	5/15/2000 1:24:00 PM
From: data_rox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Hi postyle Re: cdma2000 claims If the Pilot Code Standard and Power Control change to use IDC IPR for cdma2000, won't that negate the backwards compatibility to existing IS-95 handsets? I don't think the operators will be asking 50 million plus users to turn in their existing handsets (or even reflash) when cdma2000's clear objective is to maintain compatibility to -A and -B users in addition to new 1x phones. Maybe I'm off base here and you'll tell me these changes can be made on the network without impacting existing handsets, but I don't think so. Your RB friend, Rox

To: postyle who wrote (10131)	5/15/2000 1:56:00 PM
From: engineer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Which billion dollars was that? Market cap is $650M. Seriously you can't mean yearly revenue? What has it been? $50M for suing people? Or was that $50M for settlement with some of hte TDMA guys? I am confused. Even more by the posts...