While Corpgold seems
to have a fair grasp of the technical issues regarding the core technologies involved, I have found very
little verification for his interpretations regarding his spin on the technologies involved. Granted, a lot
of it can be pretty abstract, BUT, if it is too abstract, the bottom line of real world application comes
in to question.
what spin would that be?
Now, for the meat of his argument. Initially he is implying that QCOM does not have the sort of
"core" IPR for WCDMA that it claims.
i believe the implication is that IDCC owns "core" IPR for WCDMA per the NOK agreement. the implication is that IDCC's "core" is the basis for the NOK agreement. if NOK chooses to license with Qualcomm for their IPR, it possibly won't be for the "core". You can argue about "core" competencies all day, but until NOK changes their speech regarding the "core", you have Qualcomm's word. IDCC has a license. this is not to say that Qualcomm and NOK can't or won't get together to patch up their differences on this issue. where did you get the thinking that "Qualcomm doesn't own the core"? there are essential patents yes, but among those "essential" patents some companies offer alternatives if used in full combination. many of IDCC's and Qualcomm's solutions work conjuctively within each other's own core network.
Can WCDMA be implemented without infringing? For most of us, except the truly
technically knowledgeable, the answer is a matter of faith.
What does "faith" have to do with having or not having a current "core" WCDMA 3g license?
QCOM has stated publically that the
answer is NO, and that you have to pay QCOM royalties for WCDMA, and so far the players in the
game (with the notable exception of NOK), have agreed.
this is completely accurate. despite the talk about there being "one" WCDMA standard; in fact two remain - the ARIB version and the European version. the ARIB version is a WCDMA standard overlay of a PDC system. the European version is a WCDMA standard overly of a GSM sytem. regardless of what this says to you personally about "one CDMA standard", these two version overlays still call for "core" discrepancies relative to interface. Both the ARIB and European versions are TDMA (PDC and GSM)interface centric over CDMA systems. Where is Qualcomm's TDMA interface patents? Interdigital has claimed (really nothing more or less) that they own the "interface" for these versions. if you want to refer to this as a "core"...it is certainly a potentially lucrative core.
The later commentary is circuitous, and I am not sure what he means. For most, "later" would mean
having a commercially operating system. If you have evidence of a timetable for a commercially
viable WCDMA system, please let us know. The Japan "buildout" is testing as far as I understand,
not commercial availability, and that comes out in March 2001.
why contintue to argue this point? go to DoCoMo's web site and study the WCDMA buildout issue. call the company regarding "commercial" application vs "testing". an intial buildout of over 250,000 "lines" does not constitute "testing". Also visit the NEC site. If you note on the following site, the "beginning of commercial" service begins early 2001. NEC has also developed prototype videophones in testing in Malaysia concurrently with phones available for commercial applications this fall.
nttdocomo.com
2 1/2 G vs. 3 G. Where does 1XRTT fail to meet 3G standards?
relative to the potential number of users per channel, spectrum use, interface to GSM/TDMA, data speeds, etc.; and the many other implications that go along. this terminology is from ITU participants; analysts, other independent telecom study firms.
It may be even true, based on some odd tricks of the wording in a definition of 3G by
the UMTS (i.e. what bandwidth of spectrum must be used, or how it can be allocated), however,
from a service provided standpoint, what is the answer?
what trickery? WCDMA is proposed at 384kbps in a 5mghz spread, 1X and 144kbps in 1.25mghz. 3X is more competitve with WCDMA proposals.
Finally, more bandwidth does technically imply more potential data, but then why isn't TDMA
competitive? The efficient use of bandwidth is a critical issue for carriers. WIDER IS NOT BETTER
for bandwidth use. I have no idea why there seems to be this delusion. If WCDMA uses a wider
band of spectrum than CDMA2000, how is that better? If you get 2 WCDMA channels for 3
CDMA2000 channels, where is the advantage?
you are correct that "wider" is not better and that efficient use of bandwidth is obviously important. simply put, study the ITU's testing data regarding WCDMA vs 1X CDMA2000 relative to efficient use of bandwidth - number of users per channel, amount of data bits per load, etc. efficient use is relative to many factors, not simply the spread.
I have in fact sparred with corpgold in the past on his home turf. He is very good with technical
sounding arguments, but when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of the real world implementations,
he suffers lockup.
real world implementations - please explain; give examples.
He has his take on it, as do I. And everyone is
able to dig it out for themselves. If you want a guru, and like corpgold, then feel free to believe his
take on the industry.
your implication that "corpgold" is a "guru" is your own. as for "take on it" - the spin from many camps, even as presented at the ITU meetings, can be unsettling.
nonetheless, NOK gave IDCC a 3g license for "core" competencies. NOK has nearly 40% of the world's handset market now. where's the spin on this relative to Qualcomm?
this is not a Qualcomm vs. IDCC battle. making it into one only confuses the real issues going on here. |
