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: Ramus who wrote (15517)	9/25/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Dave	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

W. Houston: I thought I heard that ETSI...had mandated that any 3G standard being submitted had to be free of IPR uncertainty by Dec 31 this year. I am not sure if the ETSI has said that. However, the Q is claiming that the current W-CDMA propsal/standard infringes on their. That is different from the ETSI current W-CDMA proposal/standard infringes on the Q's IP. Therefore, the Q's position is a bit biased. The only way to find out if the ETSI's W-CDMA proposal/standard infringes on the Q's IP is court. dave

To: Ramus who wrote (15517)	9/25/1998 6:03:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

All -OT- VARIOUS VIEWS; nordby.com

To: Ramus who wrote (15517)	9/25/1998 6:50:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

"I thought I heard that ETSI(or some European standards body) had mandated that any 3G standard being submitted had to be free of IPR uncertainty by Dec 31 this year. If this is true, and if the Q has not licensed its IPRs for use in W-CDMA by that time, does it mean that W-CDMA is dead and will not be approved as a standard?" No, it just means that they'll extend the time! What other choice is there? I suppose SETI could decide that since there is no standard agreed by their self-imposed deadline, they could agree to dissolve themselves and get real jobs as cdma2000 handset commission only salesmen. There is not actually any need for the standards body to do anything. This stems from the old 'the bigger the better, economies of scale, totalitarian, 5 year plan, all must be equal, all must be the same' concept of productive enterprise, economies, political systems and people. The European governments could simply sell spectrum to the highest bidder. The highest bidder could then decide what to do with their spectrum. If they choose some obscure wireless technology which nobody wants, they'll lose their shirt. If they choose a popular one, they'll beat competition and do very well. No need for the standards bureaucracy. I've had direct experience of European, USA and New Zealand standards bodies in action. In none of the instances I was involved in were they contributing anything useful to human happiness. Mqurice