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: D.J.Smyth who wrote (4629)	11/25/2000 1:36:03 AM
From: Bux	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Darrell, since you are arguing W-CDMA capacity advantages over CDMA2000, it makes me wonder if you stand firm on your statements that IDC will collect royalties on anything that follows IS-95 (like CDMA2000)? I remember back in February (seems like ages ago) you argued that the '94 agreement only allows Qualcomm to use IDC's 5 patents for IS-95, not CDMA2000. You said Qualcomm would need to sign a license agreement with IDC to sell CDMA2000. Now that CDMA2000 is commercially deployed and there is no sign of Qualcomm signing a royalty-bearing license agreement with IDC, one of four things must be true; 1) Qualcomm has designed CDMA2000 around those 5 IDC patents. 2) IDC's 5 patents were never needed to begin with. 3) The '94 agreement DID apply to CDMA2000. 4) IDC is preparing to sue Qualcomm for patent infringement but are a little slow on the draw. Do you know which is true? In case the ridiculous position you took last winter has slipped your mind, here are a couple of links to refresh your memory. Please note that you state as a fact that the '94 agreement did not apply to CDMA2000 and new license agreements would be needed. Also note that in the 10 to 20 posts that follow in this debate, you refuse to back down from your stance, even though I requested evidence to support your claims and you failed to provide any, preferring rhetoric and belittlement of me in place of meaningful dialog. It was obvious you were hyping IDC without a leg to stand on and now that CDMA2000 has been commercially deployed without payment to IDC, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Too bad so many investors had to wait so long to discover what might have been obvious to them also had it not been for your twisted support of the illogical. Message 12875775 Message 12865652 Please don't bother to respond unless you feel you have a logical and understandable rebuttal or wish to retract your crazy claim that the '94 agreement applies ONLY to IS-95. Bux