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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: samim anbarcioglu who wrote (143281)	7/4/2006 3:48:17 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Samim, Seems I've read something similar before>>> To: qbull who wrote (28537) 11/6/2002 1:26:22 PM From: samim anbarcioglu of 53165 <<Nokia and its partners ``own such a vast set of patents that they may be able to operate without using Qualcomm's patents at all,'' Maunula said.>> They will have to invent a way to implement soft handoff, power control, and rake receiver, without which you can not build a CDMA cellular telephony system. Or they can rent the patents to the said inventions that already work from QCOM for a modest price. Without a way to do soft handoff and power control, they have nothing.

To: samim anbarcioglu who wrote (143281)	7/4/2006 4:00:40 PM
From: scratchmyback	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

<<It is not possible to implement cellular telephony with spread spectrum physical layer (CDMA), without also employing 1. power control (as the phone approaches to the tower), 2. rake receiver, 3. soft hand over of calls to the adjacent cell as the phone moves. It is these three essential patents that form the basis of Q's stronghold on the CDMA telephony. It is these three patents that NOK tried for 16 years to bypass, without success. They tried with R&D, and separately in courts, they kept losing in both venues.>> Wasn't it so that patents expire in 17 years? I ain't no patent engineer, but could that be the explanation for Nokia's decision to give up after 16 years, like you wrote.

To: samim anbarcioglu who wrote (143281)	7/4/2006 6:15:07 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 152472

What soft hand over?? I thought a hard hand and over was WCDMA, asynchronously applied?? Power control, should it be fast or slow, inside or outside the loop or some comet?? Raking stuff, are they made of bamboo or sillicones?? T/2, 3T/4, T/5 etc,etc,etc.. However, if not, USA would never have agreed to be part of the first ever global standard.

To: samim anbarcioglu who wrote (143281)	7/5/2006 3:00:21 AM
From: barty	Respond to of 152472

I agree. Dont get me wrong, Qcom has many essential, fundamental, non-blocking radio patents that put them in a great position - and they are clearly getting compensated for that, and fully deserve to be. no arguement. But there are many other essential patents out there that Qcom does not own, particularly in the higher layers of the stack. I still do not think there is an easy answer (taking account of all the replies) to seperate which are more "valuable" patents than others. As said before, its not just about radio (power control techniques, rake receivers etc have been around for a while too). Like it or not, radio is only one part of WCDMA standard - and as ETSI standardisation took place in the late 90s Nokia and Ericsson were falling over themselves to get certain features/technologies accepted, which took advantage of their essential patent portfolio. In fact, right or wrong, they are still adding features now - that help puff up their positions. I don't think there is an easy solution here. Its the same as debates about WCDMA royalties applying only to the commms value of the handset (not the battery, brand, camera module, plug in card, screen etc that also go into devices today) how do you seperate that out? That's also not easy to sort out, but its clear that the modem is an enabler, not the total value of the system anymore.