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: engineer who wrote (48471)	11/5/2005 7:52:07 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 196496

<<QUALCOMM also patented much more systematically and aggressively ... and with a much different mind set from the outset than the Europeans or Asians [patent for profit v. patent to protect or patent to cross-license] -- particularly in the late eighties and early to mid-nineties -- and they created an extremely aggressive, comprehensive, and effective IP business model which they evolved over time. >> I would suggest that you go back and review history on what happened with the open standard and GSM patents. Everyone took a very agressive patent stance on thos, so much so that the Europeans almost got outflanked by MOT. I am not sure that I would characterize Q's approach as more aggressive. But they certainly put thought into how to 'cover the waterfront' instead of just patenting the instantiation they used. If you want to characterize that as aggresive, ok. But I think of it as smart. Of course it helps to be the first to the waterfront in that area.

To: engineer who wrote (48471)	11/5/2005 8:32:34 PM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 196496

The Non-congealing GSM Standards ... ... which are (is) simply the single most successful and most excruciatingly documented open comittee-based truly global standard in history. engineer, << I would suggest that you go back and review history on what happened with the open standard and GSM patents. Everyone took a very aggressive patent stance on thos, so much so that the Europeans almost got outflanked by MOT. ... A couple of years ago someone posted a white paper outlining the history of the GSM patent base. >> Been there, done that. Numerous times. ... and yes, Motorola changed the game. The initial and classic studies of the derivation and acquisition of GSM IP were made by Rudi Bekkers (and his academic associates). Rudi is the author of two exceptional books on mobile wireless technology standards development and in the latest -- Mobile Telecommunications Standard (2002) Artech House -- he discusses GSM and UMTS (as well as TETRA and ERMES) development and diffusion in the market context, the technology context, the regulatory context, the standardization context, the economic context, and the IPR context ... tinyurl.com It is not the definitive history of GSM and UMTS but it is quite good and exceptionally well researched. A step or two or ten above Jeff Belk's fun stuff. Here's a bibliography of some of Bekker's work ... fp.tm.tue.nl Here is one of his whitepapers on the subject were discussing fp.tm.tue.nl << I would suggest that Qualcomm patent approach was moderate compared to the GSM one. >> I would agree with you on that. Essentially there was no ETSI patent policy for GSM, and instead at CEPT's instigation there was a gentlemen's agreement not to patent by the GSM stakeholders and the French and German's specifically prohibited their participants from patenting. The IP battle erupted after standardization was completed, and part of the reason it was so long and protracted was that ETSI at that time had no patent policy. << GSM really never congealed as a standard, but rahter 13 standards that were similar, >> Oh me, oh my. I'll refrain from using your favorite expletive or the 2 letter acronym for it, although I was certainly tempted for a second or two, but you would have great trouble convincing anyone associated with the industry that "GSM really never congealed as a standard." You have oft stated, "I know what I know" and the corollary to that is that you don't know what you don't know, and you don't even know what you think you know as well as you would like to imply that you do, and that is very obvious when you are out of your element and primary areas of expertise. GSM coherently "congealed" (your word, not mine) in two initial phases. GSM Phase 1, and GSM Phase 2 which were standardized in ETSI, with DCS-1800 an PCS-1900 eventually rolled into GSM Phase 2. GSM Phase 2+ commenced in ETSI and was transferred to 3GPP along with maintenance on Phase 2 shortly after 3GPP commenced work on UMTS and UTRA-DS and TDD. While some like to refer to GSM as a legacy standard, work on GSM Phase 2+ continues today and the current completed standard is R'5, with R'6 nearing completion, and R'7 which will probably include enhanced EDGE (doubling capacity and peak data rates) commenced. BTW: Ed Tiedemann was a special guest at the Helsinki ETSI workshop in November 1992 which lay the groundwork for evolving GSM beyond Phase 2 (which initially was not planned) and adding an IP backbone and packet data bearers -- so if you need to go back for a review, give Ed a jingle. << but different so that the phone stack actually runs 13 different modes of code. >> C'est la vie. Lottsa RABs, TBS. Best, - Eric -