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 (4696)	7/6/2001 3:43:04 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5195

I have a question for you Mightylakers, you have always seemed to be a relatively civil and fair person. You wrote: Many were very eager to buy into theories of bandwidth limitation, of the power of the '94 x-license agreement, etc. as a way to get around QCOM's royalty demands. Originally, I bought into the possibility of one of those theories being correct. However, slowly but surely, the picture became much clearer -- at least to the common investor. You even saw some of your favorite people ML -- like i_q and corp -- admit publicly that QCOM's IPR was not limited to 2G CDMA. My Question: Have you determined what (and who) was the perpetrator of those views that had no supporting evidence? In other words, who was the author of the first internet published view that QCOM IPR only applied to 2G? By determining this, one can identify those who are not to be trusted. Think about it, this idea that Qualcomm IPR somehow ended at "2G" had to start somewhere...... Bux