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 (8366)	3/9/2001 2:33:27 PM
From: laodeng	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196536

The most interest questions yet answered is: Where are the claims by other players which are proven to be essential for CDMA2000 or wCDMA? Many claims must have been studied. But I would suspect huge publicity on those if any of them are ESSENTIAL. Where are they? laodeng

To: foundation who wrote (8366)	3/9/2001 3:57:42 PM
From: Keith Feral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196536

Projecting is a nice word ... misrepresenting is a better word. When I try to think of QCOM's IPR position in WCDMA vs. CDMA2000, I rememeber one important fact. QCOM charges the same whether a company uses one or all of it's patents. They do not add charges on top of each other like the GSM camp, creating an overload of royalties up to 20%. It's one simple flat fee for QCOM and it's CDMA2000/WCDMA patent portfolio. The little nuances about chip speed don't matter to QCOM's patent portfolio. MOT, ERICY, and NOK have found this out in every court in the US, Korea, Japan, and Europe.