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: Rajala who wrote (15767)	9/30/1998 10:18:00 AM
From: mmeggs	Respond to of 152472

No no. I was referring to the white paper where ERICY offers to trade patents and endorses a "low" royalty system for IPR. I agree, the white paper d/n have ETSI acknowledging Q's claims. (Though others have posted ETSI's acknowledgement of Q's "strong" IP position.) You had said you didn't see where the paper had done that. I'll try to find it again and c&p. I apologize if it was someone else who posted the link to the white paper, I thought it was you. (Hence the reference to "your" white paper. mmeggs

To: Rajala who wrote (15767)	9/30/1998 1:48:00 PM
From: Ramus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala, "your own white paper"? I read ETSI's white paper again and nowhere, absolutely nowhere, can I see ETSI confirming any Q's IPR claims on W-CDMA. Why don't you copy&paste it here? I did, look at post# 15686. Don't just scan through it, read every word and consider it carefully. This means don't simply stop reading when you encounter the line where ESTI acknowledges Q IPRs for CDMA. Read the whole thing. I assume you're making investment decisions based on information such as this. If ETSI is not acknowledging Q IPR for W-CDMA I would like to hear your argument because I am trying to understand as much as I can to maximize the positive effect of my decisions. I would appreciate your informed input. W.