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: w molloy who wrote (4355)	6/26/2000 3:29:00 PM
From: Frank	Respond to of 5195

molly, Perhaps I shouldn't intercede in the lively discussion you seem to be having with Gus. Its quite thoughtful and entertaining. Anyway, Gus seems to be making some interesting assumptions that, while a little out of line, appear, generally speaking, reasonable. Clearly, Gus's assumptions are those of an outsider, but are based on sound inferences. The thing I've found is most of the stuff in the 10K isn't obfuscation, but direction setting, further supported by the articles published and the recent meeting. The thing that gets me is how obvious these thing are and how correct analysis does yield a 3 - 6 month advantage over the market. Any day now we'll be getting the foreshadowing of things to come with the trial. It is just so exciting, I can't stand the anticipation of being right yet again. Good things come to those who wait.

To: w molloy who wrote (4355)	6/26/2000 3:50:00 PM
From: Gus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

You're confused, Molly. I assumed a very low royalty rate on a very conservative ASP to get a sense of the TDMA royalties that will accrue to IDCC from Nokia, not CNXT or VLSI. You're just trying to muddle the issue. LOL. that was precisely the point you were trying to make No, I specifically said "the lowest possible BOM" which is totally different from whatever you may understood that to mean. Common sense alone tells you that handset manufacturers have other considerations than BOM. You're just splitting hairs. people like Bux and Carrenza would be apt to take more notice of you if you indulged in more 'sensitivity analysis'. Is that a cry for help, Molly? Do you really think I care about what the likes of Bux, Carrenza or you think? Bux and Carrenza didn't exactly acquit themselves that well when they were here. Bux went bonkers and started posting more than 100 posts a day on RB and more than 30 posts a day on Yahoo after he was repeatedly corrected on the facts and his partisan opinions. Carrenza screamed and shouted but left with his tail between his leg when news of the Brazil decision came out. Emotional chaps both. Granted, my credibility is singed, but not shot. You wouldn't be responding in this fashion if it was. (I guess I'm on strike 2 - but you won't see strike 3.) In case you've forgotten already, you got caught lying, Molly. No, nobody here takes seriously, but you already know that. I'm just picking apart your opinions and your poor grasp of the facts because you insist on posing as some sort of objective observer when in fact, you're so emotionally attached to your QCOM and so quick to take emotional potshots at IDCC for whatever neurotic reasons. We already know that you're losing a lot of money on your QCOM position. How is that questionable? Nokia sold 79m handsets in 1999 Nice try. All that information is nice, but are you saying that Nokia will not be able to grow at 10% per year for the next two years? That's a simple question. Why try to evade a simple question? Yes, and like the analysts who no longer cover IDCC, (and show no signs of returning) I find them masterpieces of obfuscation. But you're confused to start with, Molly. Look at how you were unable to grasp even the simple fact disclosed in the SEC filing that the Nokia and IDCC deal covered only the TDD version of WCDMA. you said in your earlier post that the QCOM-IDCC settlement only applied to a restricted frequency. Do you have specific evidence of that, since the received opinion on all the other threads is that isn't the case. As a matter of fact I pointed it out to you several times before, but it went right over your head because you were too wrapped up in your QCOM fantasies then to notice. Why don't you go and fetch it from the Neopoint prospectus. Bye now. You're way too easy.

To: w molloy who wrote (4355)	6/26/2000 4:02:00 PM
From: postyle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

w molloy, you said in your earlier post that the QCOM-IDCC settlement only applied to a restricted frequency. Do you have specific evidence of that... From sec.gov "...The license under InterDigital's Patents is limited to use in Wireless Applications which spread the CDMA signal over not more than a 10MHz bandwidth." the received opinion on all the other threads is that isn't the case Ahhh, but some have changed their minds when presented with the facts. Originally, Clark Hare, (someone with a well respected standing when it comes to patents on the Q threads) stated: "I have seen no evidence that the settlement was bandwidth specific, although I have seen some FUD about IPR being bandwidth specific. I'd be stunned if it were bandwidth specific. Read the ICD and Q! 10Ks to get a good idea of the settlement terms." Message 13381746 But when shown the Neopoint prospectus, he quickly changed his tune: "It appears to be true that Qualcomm did indeed license IDC's CDMA patents for only 10MHz or less" Message 13705304 How many times has this been brought up before? If I am misinterpreting your question, then forgive me this post. I am assuming when you are talking of "restricted frequency" that you mean bandwidth. Regards, postyle