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: postyle who wrote (4692)	7/5/2001 3:27:54 PM
From: mightylakers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

Post, You may have noticed how many others have changed their tune (re: QCOM's IPR position) Yes, and I also noticed those who are in denial<ggg> Like you said, the writing is on the wall. If they are willing to play it tough, fine with me. Although I do understand the angry sentiment from bottom of their heart though. So I won't say anything about the vent off:-) Oops, I just said something did I? LOL

To: postyle who wrote (4692)	7/6/2001 3:35:08 PM
From: Bux	Respond to of 5195

Thanks Postyle, it helps when we all speak clearly and freely so there is no misunderstanding. When QCOM posted on their website a few presentations that claimed their patents were A) not bandwidth specific and B) licensed for 3G use by over 50 manufacturers, I knew my capitulation was the right choice from an investment point of view. I would like to point out that I was chastised harshly by many right here for pointing out that this was the case at an early enough point in time to allow escape with good profits. In fact, there was never any evidence to suggest that Qualcomm's patents were ever bandwidth specific. As far as I can tell it was fabricated by IDC boosters from thin air for the specific purpose of pumping IDC up into the $80's. People like Corpgold, Jimlur and Bill D. were all known to present this point of view to potential IDC investors. And they did this without ever providing evidence that Q's patents were ever bandwidth specific. It was pure hype to help IDC soar higher. The reason I was attacked so aggressively when I would point out this, and other, inconsistencies with the IDC story was because there was no other ammunition to support their far-out theories which were presented as fact. The lesson that can be learned from this is that the people doing the name-calling and character assassinations are usually the people without a credible leg to stand on. Live and learn. Bux