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: Rich Bloem who wrote (59707)	2/4/2007 1:29:05 AM
From: edwin k.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197271

And that Value increases dramatically (maybe even exponentially) as that spectrum begins to get crowded. I believe many of us may have forgotten about what the actual value might be of that spectrum when it begins to get squeezed everywhere, and it eventually will. We are not quite there yet though. As we approach "relative saturation", I believe that this could help dramatically to drive CDMA as a technology down the road a ways. e.k.

To: Rich Bloem who wrote (59707)	2/4/2007 10:12:16 AM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 197271

A telling thing here is you hear nothing at all from the Operators... spectrum... maximise value and they know it In-band WCDMA 900MHz is great. Maybe WiMax as multimode on IMT-2000 bands could be OK, and some of the operators want to spend their money on that , but... The NGMN [T-Mobile; Orange; Vodafone; KPN Mobile; China Mobile;NTT DoCoMo; Sprint Nextel ] sounds some potentially sour notes for 2010 and out ( which is not long-term anymore) Qualcomm has adhered to a rational path ( though I'd like to see a direct Q response to Broadcom's claim that [the "new"?] Q wanted to exact a toll of double the whole MPEGLA patent pool for one of the "valid "unenforceable" patents). But the NGMN refers to ETSI's initiatives etsi.org which is a problem. ------------------------- ETSI Policy Objectives 3.1 It is ETSI’s objective to create STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS that are based on solutions which best meet the technical objectives of the European telecommunications sector, as defined by the General Assembly. In order to further this objective the ETSI IPR POLICY seeks to reduce the risk to ETSI, MEMBERS, and others applying ETSI STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, that investment in the preparation, adoption and application of STANDARDS could be wasted as a result of an ESSENTIAL IPR for a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION being unavailable. In achieving this objective, the ETSI IPR POLICY seeks a balance between the needs of standardization for public use in the field of telecommunications and the rights of the owners of IPRs. 3.2 IPR holders whether members of ETSI and their AFFILIATES or third parties, should be adequately and fairly rewarded for the use of their IPRs in the implementation of STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. ------------------------ ETSI will go beyond defense against submarine patents and incomplete disclosures into restriction on market valuations. The Operators Group sez: ---------------- To date mobile network operators have taken the position of using IPR developed by others and paying for such use at a “reasonable” rate without actively managing the IPR license fees or to whom they are actually paid. Such a relaxed attitude by the operators was based on the early GSM IPR license fees that were limited by mutual agreement between the operators and vendors. However, in moving to the next generation of technology, in both networks and devices, the industry has moved beyond the initial protection of those early agreements. Some technology companies are beginning to use IPR license fees in a manner that undermines the spirit of those earlier agreements and threatens the health of the mobile industry ecosystem. Therefore, the IPR Licensing regime is needed that adopts the following principles: Transparent • All License fees associated with any proposal must be clearly stated including -Clarity on any agreement terms available between licensors. E.g.: Identify where Cross license agreements or other terms impact pricing – Clarity on process to deal with the IPR of any 3rd party not currently involved in providing the technology. – Committed • License fees should cover the technology as proposed. – Any options and enhancements that require additional fees should be clear in any proposal. – Non-predatory • License fees should be clearly and solely associated with the technology provided. – Openly available • No limit to the availability of the terms provided. – Terms should be available without delay to all licensees Mobile operators are actively contributing to industry organisations to adapt the existing IPR regime to provide a better predictability of the IPR cost for beyond HSPA and EVDO developments to ensure IPR licensing under FRAND terms preferably before the standard is agreed. Although the results of an ETSI IPR Review group as agreed by the ETSI General Assembly in November 2006 are encouraging and a helpful initial step in this respect, they are not yet sufficient. NGMN seeks to further develop these principles to provide customers innovative services at highest cost/performance efficiency. ngmn-cooperation.com NGMN White Paper Version 3.0 5 December 2006 Next Generation Mobile Networks Beyond HSPA & EVDO A White Paper By Board Of NGMN Limited Hamid Akhavan - T- Mobile International AG & Co. KG Vivek Badrinath - Orange SA Thomas Geitner - Vodafone Group PLC. Dr. Horst Lennertz - KPN Mobile N.V. Yuejia Sha - China Mobile Takanori Utano - NTT DoCoMo Barry West - Sprint Nextel Corporation 5 December 2006 Version 3.0

To: Rich Bloem who wrote (59707)	2/4/2007 1:02:01 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 197271

The Network Operators Take Action ... Rich, << A telling thing here is you hear nothing at all from the Operators with the exception of Reliance who decided to join a bandwagon. That is because they know the value of what Q brought to the party and they are reaping the benefits. >> You only hear "nothing at all from the Operators" if you are either totally ignoring or not paying attention to what is transpiring in the standards setting organizations who are members of GSC and WIPO (ETSI, ARIB, etc.) or network operators organizations (GSMA, NGNM, etc.). << Q has given them the ability to maximise that value and they know it. >> Is that why there is no CDMA component whatsoever in the 3GPP LTE standard from R'8 forward? You might want to download and read the latest rev (v.3) of the Next Generation Mobile Networks, "Beyond HSPA & EVDO" that chapq referenced, paying particular attention to the 4th imperative as described in §4.1.4, and of course reread the GSMA PR that addresses evolving changes in ETSI IPR Policy ... gsmworld.com ... and please note that the ad hoc on IPR Policy that the ETSI operator members established 2½ years is being replaced or supplemented by a newly created permanent IPR Committee. Best, - Eric -