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 (15803)	9/30/1998 4:22:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Rajala, WH, et al - Rajala's disagreement about whether ETSI has conceeded Qualcomm has IPR is purely semantic in nature. In particular for the passage: ETSI acknowledges that Qualcomm holds CDMA IPRs. In this context the following observation is particularly relevant: "With respect to proprietary status, AMPS, NA-TDMA, GSM and IS-41 are essentially in the public domain. In the case of CDMA, Qualcomm holds strong intellectual property rights, which it asserts through licensing agreements with an array of equipment vendors… Rajala reads this as saying that ETSI thinks that Qualcomm has IPR to generic CDMA, but not necessarily to W-CDMA. This is not completely unreasonable for this passage taken alone. For instance, if I read a passage saying that Company X had patents on engines I wouldn't assume that it necessarily applied to all engines. Everyone else reads it saying that Qualcomm IPR applies to generic CDMA which encompasses both W-CDMA and CDMAOne. Thus, this is an acknowledgement of Qualcomm's IPR for W-CDMA (just as I would if Ford acknowledged GM's engine patents in the middle of an IPR dispute). Or said another way, if it doesn't apply to W-CDMA, and only applies to CDMAOne, then why not say CDMAOne instead of just CDMA. At best the ETSI folks should employ some better press agents if they didn't mean to acknowledge Qualcomm's IPR for W-CDMA. Or why ask Qualcomm to give a disposition on their patents? Or, why quote someone else as saying that standards are now about battles over IPR? ... I think that the article as a whole is pretty clearly an indication that ETSI acknowledges Qualcomm's IPR for W-CDMA, but I don't think it is a completely airtight interpretation. Rajala, are you a lawyer?<g> Can we stop arguing over this now? Clark

To: Ramus who wrote (15803)	10/1/1998 3:22:00 AM
From: Rajala	Respond to of 152472

>>Why don't you copy&paste it here? >Read the whole thing. I assume you're making investment decisions >based on information such as this. OK, I read the whole thing again. This is the closest that ETSI comes to admitting Q's IPR claims on W-CDMA: >On August 6, Qualcomm notified to ETSI that "(Qualcomm) is >not prepared to grant licenses for the proposed W-CDMA standard >in accordance..." If you look at it very, very carefully, you'll see that it is a direct quote from Q. It contains no ETSI opinions. None. - rajala