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: Bux who wrote (4359)	6/26/2000 6:49:00 PM
From: postyle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Why do the IDC shareholders continue to parade this around as if it meant something? I think the real question is "why do the QCOM supporters continue to rationalize that the limitations in the '94 agreement are a non-issue?" Since the '94 agreement debate seems to have been covered before countless times, I'll go back in time and grab the pertinent text... "...three of the approved 3g standards operate in wider spreads, spreads exceeding 10mghz. also, CDMA2000, in tests was shown to operate more efficiently in spreads bw 10mghz and 15mghz under varied circumstances (read ITU documentation in this regard). if you'd like to see copies of the studies, would be happy to produce them. as for begging the question regarding IDCC's rate...obviously times change. Qualcomm originally licensed the technology from IDCC when CDMA was a whisper and on practically no radar screens relative to actual use. It now comprises 10% of the digitial use worldwide (with TDMA standards comprising the other 90%). aren't you assuming too much when you imply that IDCC's licensing rate the second time around will again be a mere pittance? ...as for the "10mghz thing", I would suggest that you review the ITU open documents fully before concluding this is a mild downer. it is actually very significant for TDMA, TDD and TD-SCDMA - three of the 5 approved 3g standards. tests involving CDMA2000 have also shown improved operability in the 10mghz-15mghz relative to data applications - thus, a partial reason for Qualcomm's need to invent and deploy HDR." Message 13711899 In addition to the 10Mhz limitation in the '94 agreement is the limitation of QCOM's use of IDCC's technology to "...every patent issued on or before March 7, 1995." Now, Bux, I see you have been arguing your "takes" on the '94 agreement all morning over on Raging Bull. But I believe the issue has been covered here thoroughly. You have your opinion, and it differs with many on this thread. Whether it is true that QCOM and IDCC have met earlier this year to work something out in this regard or not, I don't know for certain. But we'll all know soon enough. If you could so kindly remind yourself that your opinions and conclusions regarding the '94 agreement have been posted, acknowledged, and placed into memory by those who read this thread -- then we won't have to keep circulating old rebuttals to your old arguments.

To: Bux who wrote (4359)	6/26/2000 7:07:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

Correction, I noticed a typo in my post #4360. The "over" in the third sentence shouldn't be there. It should read: "Nobody is even close to deploying a system that spreads 10Mhz and even if that is done, it will still fall under the '94 agreement." I hope you understand the significance of this because many seem to erroneously place all hope of IDC's collection of royalties on these little exceptions in the '94 agreement when the exceptions don't really limit Qualcomm in any practical manner. Anyone with half a brain can try to portray these exceptions as the golden doorway for IDC but investors will be badly shaken when disappointment after disappointment rears it's ugly head. IMO, with the '94 agreement in place, IDC's chances of collecting meaningful royalties on 1xrtt, 1xEV or HDR are ZERO and on W-CDMA....well, slim to none. IDC has a history of grand ideas followed by utter failure. There is no reason to believe this time will be any different especially with what we have seen so far. "Calculator with a lot of digits", "engine and transmission", please, we are adults, don't try to sway us with cutesy but meaningless phrases such as these. WHERE'S THE BEEF???? We are supposed to believe that IDC is going to resurrect the failed B-CDMA ASIC, somehow make it work like magic in a mobile environment, and be competitive with the likes of Qualcomm who works on six to ten different iterations of mobile chips at a time, combining web features, sound, voice recognition, bluetooth, GPS location technology that continues to work indoors, web banking and authentication, and a whole host of other features that escape me at the moment? Chips that are designed with backwards compatibility and leverage that to the limit? That one little company is going to rise up from King of Prussia, take on the experts and giants in the field and somehow convince handset manufacturers to buy their one little chip (presumably with a much abbreviated feature set) and yet still sell enough to make a profit after paying Qualcomm and probably others royalties? I'm sure they will be a fierce competitor. I can hardly wait. Bux