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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: foundation who wrote (6140)	1/13/2001 6:00:40 PM
From: straight life	Respond to of 196959

...and the insiders have been selling at prices in the 50 cent region. You'd think if they had something valuable...? EOM

To: foundation who wrote (6140)	1/13/2001 6:09:33 PM
From: Theophile	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196959

Examination of the ADVC thread on SI led me to asking DDInvestor.com a question, part of their reply: "Qualcomm There has been a lot of discussion about the SpectruCell implementation of CDMA without the need for Qualcomm chipsets. To clarify things a bit, Qualcomm does not own CDMA, it owns a specific hardware based implementation of CDMA. This is the IS-95 specification." and "What ACT has done is to develop an implementation of CDMA (IS-95) that does not use any Qualcomm chipsets. From legal advice and information received during discussions and meetings with Qualcomm, it would seem evident that we do not need any Qualcomm licensing to develop commercial SpectruCell systems. In the IS-95 specification there are some minor functions that Qualcomm have developed, such as pilot channel synchronisation with the handset, that may need minimal licensing. But this is by far the minimal portion and has no effect on the SpectruCell system." from: Message 15179 631 and the offer of a personal reply from Jason: "Once again I am more than happy to reply to technical issues related to SpectruCell, my email is jason@adcomtech.net and provided the questions do not rely on me disclosing commercially sensitive information I will post the answers on this board. " So, I am continuing to wonder why, for 59$, if they are important, why are they not yet gobbled up by LU or another? Martin Thomas PS: I did note they state "no licensing needed to develop...commercial systems"...is this another way of saying they don't need a license until they sell a system? Regards, MT

To: foundation who wrote (6140)	1/13/2001 6:22:43 PM
From: Theophile	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196959

Allow me to briefly finish this dialogue: "To clarify things a bit, Qualcomm does not own CDMA, it owns a specific hardware based implementation of CDMA. This is the IS-95 specification." To which I queried (in quite elementary fashion, I cannot do better with RF Speak) : Message 15179669 I was under the impression that the critical QCOM patents for CDMA were for the air interface abilities to afford soft-handoff and power regulation. I question the claim of this being a hardware-only based patent, for it deals with the ability to do this, not necessarily with their chipset. Perhaps the hardware accomplishes this function, which would of course be another patent for the hardware design. Could you please address this area with greater specificity? and the instantaneous reply: Message 15179698 To mthomas777 As Mr May stated in his post, they are being very cautious on commenting on details of their patent filings on advice from their patent attorneys. The questions you ask most probably fall into that category. We will fax your questions on to Jason May and post any reply he may have." OK, so when DDI responds I will post it. Until then, no more of this from my station. I continue to believe it is the crucial "no license needed to develop " lingo which is pivotal to their claim to fame.....I have been wrong before,..... I remember the day it happened.....(:^)> Martin Thomas