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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (16604)	9/7/2000 8:55:10 PM
From: Pierre	Respond to of 29987

Pardon my two cents, but ... UMTS is wcdma, I believe. The interesting aspect of this is the pressure to deliver 3G in 2001. Either it's vaporware, or it isn't. If not vaporware, then either it requires Q* patents, or it doesn't. Hats off to Spain for pushing the process. These questions need to be answered sooner rather than later. As IJ said a loooong time ago, the cdma flavor's not important but getting it rolled out in some flavor, any flavor, is. If it's vaporware, this could be the wireless version of the Inquisition. :>) Pierre

To: pcstel who wrote (16604)	9/8/2000 5:05:52 AM
From: rf_hombre	Respond to of 29987

PCS, that was classic! Regarding Nortel UMTS infrastructure contracts in Europe, there has been very little discussion discussion about which CDMA engine our North American compadres are using. What WDCDMA IPR agreements does Nortel have, if any, with QCOM ? FWIW, the tea leaves here in Europe seem to point to Ericsson and Nortel getting the lionshare of UMTS contracts. Nokia, Lucent et al have missed the boat. rf_hombre

To: pcstel who wrote (16604)	9/8/2000 5:16:31 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Of course anyone could see that Qualcomms' patent pertaining to a "Closed loop power control in a CDMA system" would obviously be offset by the Ericsson patent "Buzzer with Zener diode in discharge path".. Actually, ETSI would probably assign the ERICY Zener patent a slightly higher value than the Power Control patent.. Resulting in the need for Qualcomm to PAY ERICY a royalty in the exchange.. pcstel, i admire your technical expertise. your description is way over my head. i believe perhaps the main reason for the QCOM spinoff is to leave the mother ship as a pure IP company. once completed, QCOM should require, imho, no cross-licensing. the resultant chip company may. i also heard Dr J's comments that the QCOM royalties remain the same regardless of CDMA flavor rolled out. i was thinking last night about how often i see companies referred to as the next QCOM around the message boards....if my understanding of the above is correct, QCOM is the next QCOM. uw back to lurk mode